Key result
Median TAVI waiting times fell to ~173 days recently but rebounded sharply by 2024.
Why the study?
With an ageing population and expanding TAVI applicability, waiting duration is critical because severe aortic stenosis carries a poor prognosis without timely intervention, motivating an evaluation of how waiting times changed between 2009 and 2024.
Observational (n=806)
No
Despite increased cumulative TAVI volume and faster pre-procedural evaluation, total waiting times have recently lengthened due to prolonged procedural wait times, highlighting a critical bottleneck in timely structural heart care.
Background Over the past decades transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an inevitable part of standard care of patients with severe aortic stenosis. With ageing population and expansion of TAVI applicability, waiting duration becomes of particular importance, as the natural course of the disease carries a poor prognosis without a timely definitive intervention. Purpose To assess how TAVI waiting times changed between 2009 and 2024 in a tertiary centre during a period of evolving practice. Methods A retrospective analysis of TAVI patient medical records during 2009 – 2024 was performed. Inclusion criteria were: i) confirmed diagnosis of severe aortic valve stenosis; ii) clear data points for the outcome variables. Primary outcome variable was total waiting time, starting with the date of the visit when indication for valve replacement was documented. Secondary outcomes were evaluation waiting time (from indication to the last pre-TAVI evaluation test) and procedural waiting time (from the last test to TAVI). Most recent cases during 2021 – 2024 were included in inferential analyses, for which only non-parametric tests were appropriate. Results Out of 866 TAVIs performed in the centre, 806 cases made up the final sample, of which 64.89 % were female and 85.36 % were 75 years or older. The total waiting time was a median of 237.5 (121.25; 501.75) days in 2009 – 2020 and a median of 173 (93; 310) days in 2021 – 2024. In 2021 – 2024, total waiting time differed significantly (p = 0.045), particularly between 2022 (153 days) and 2024 (238 days) (p = 0.046). Since 2021, procedural waiting time surpassed evaluation waiting time, at 70 and 66 days, respectively, and continued to increase (Figure 1), rising to 148 days in 2024 (p < 0.001). On the contrary, evaluation waiting time declined (p = 0.037) from 66 days in 2021 to 41 days in 2022. In 2024, the rates of chronic kidney disease (49.6 %, n = 62, p = 0.034), dyslipidemia (96 %, n = 120, p = 0.002) and peripheral arterial disease (22.4 %, n = 18, p = 0.018) were significantly higher, compared to earlier years. Proportion of NYHA III class patients in 2024 increased as well (77.6 %, n = 97, p = 0.002). No significant differences in the prevalence of left ventricular ejection fraction groups, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and other comorbidities, sex, age, place of residence were observed during 2021-2024. Conclusions Despite the increase in cumulative TAVI volume and established pathways, waiting times remain excessive for many patients and in recent years showed an increasing trend, driven by prolonged procedural waiting. Chronic kidney disease, dyslipidemia, NYHA III class, peripheral artery disease were more common in those who underwent TAVI in 2024. It remains ambiguous if higher comorbidity prevalence could be causally linked to longer waiting.Fig 1.Waiting times and cumulative volume.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaburaite et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Severe aortic valve stenosis (n=806). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2021–2024 vs. TAVI in 2009–2020 (and annual comparisons across 2021–2024) was evaluated on Total waiting time from documented indication for valve replacement to TAVI (p=0.045). TAVI waiting times had a median of 173 days in 2021–2024 vs 237.5 days in 2009–2020, but increased significantly from 153 days in 2022 to 238 days in 2024 (p=0.046).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: