ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
The impact of underdiagnosis and delay in care for patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis: A real-world database cohort study.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic options for aortic stenosis (AS), evidence suggests substantial underdiagnosis and care delays in real-world practice. This study examines patterns and disparities in AS diagnosis following echocardiographic identification, quantifying delays in diagnosis and subsequent care. Methods: Using the Optum® Market Clarity Dataset (2016-2023), we identified patients with first echocardiographic evidence of moderate or severe AS. Time-to-event analyses examined delays between echocardiographic findings and formal diagnosis (defined by ICD code assignment), subsequent imaging, and interventions. Analyses were stratified by severity, demographics, and care setting. Results: Among 2366 moderate and 1327 severe AS patients, 22.0% and 38.3% received formal diagnoses within one year of echocardiogram, respectively. Cumulative incidence of AS diagnosis at one year was lower in women vs men (moderate: 17.3% vs 27.8%; severe: 33.8% vs 43.0%) and non-White vs White patients (moderate: 11.4% vs 24.6%; severe: 25.8% vs 40.4%; all Conclusions: This analysis reveals substantial delays in formal ICD-coded AS diagnosis following its echocardiographic detection, with concerning disparities across demographic groups. These findings suggest gaps between clinical recognition and formal documentation of AS, with implications for care continuum. Clinical perspectives: What Is New?•Using a large, real-world integrated claims and EMR database, this study demonstrates that fewer than one-quarter of patients with echocardiographically confirmed moderate AS and fewer than 40% with severe AS receive a formal ICD-coded diagnosis within one year, with substantially lower rates among women and non-White patients.What Are the Clinical Implications?•These findings reveal a critical gap between echocardiographic detection of AS and formal clinical documentation, suggesting that administrative claims data alone may substantially underestimate the true burden of AS in the population.•Formal AS diagnosis was independently associated with a significantly higher likelihood of receiving subsequent care - including surveillance imaging and aortic valve replacement - underscoring that closing the documentation gap may be a meaningful lever for improving outcomes and reducing disparities in AS management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.