Citation: American Heart Journal. 196:74-81, 2018 Feb.Journal: American heart journal.Published: 2018ISSN: 0002-8703.Full author list: Buchanan KD; Rogers T; Alraies MC; Steinvil A; Koifman E; Escarcega RO; Tavil-Shatelyan A; Salmon J; Gai J; Xu L; Torguson R; Okubagzi P; Pichard A; Ben-Dor I; Satler LF; Waksman R.UI/PMID: 29421017.Subject(s): IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDInstitution(s): MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteonActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Journal ArticleOnline resources: Click here to access onlineDigital Object Identifier: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2017.10.019 (Click here)Abbreviated citation: Am Heart J. 196:74-81, 2018 Feb.Local Holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006.Abstract: BACKGROUND: Clinical indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and elements of the implantation procedure, including delivery system miniaturization and novel access options, have evolved over time. The reasons patients are excluded from TAVR also have changed. The impact of these changes on patient referral for and exclusion from TAVR is unknown.Abstract: METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients referred to our center for TAVR from January 2010 to August 2016 to evaluate reasons for patient exclusion. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial screening date for trends in demographics and exclusion: Group 1, 2010-2012; Group 2, 2012-2014; Group 3, 2014 to August 1, 2016. Annual trends for patient exclusion from TAVR were assessed.Abstract: RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred fifty-three patients were referred and underwent screening for TAVR. The rates at which patients were referred for TAVR were 23.8, 25.9, and 24.5 per month in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Rate of patient exclusion from TAVR decreased from 68% in Group 1 to 38% in Group 3 (P < .001). The largest percentage of patients (29.4%) were initially excluded from TAVR for cardiac reasons, but this trend has decreased over time. Twenty-five percent are excluded for lack of procedural indication. Exclusion from TAVR for vascular access reasons decreased from 7.9% in 2010 to 1.0% in 2016 (P = .017).Abstract: CONCLUSIONS: Referral numbers have been robust since TAVR became available. The percentage of patients excluded from TAVR has decreased over time. Patients are most commonly excluded from TAVR for concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD), asymptomatic severe AS, moderate AS, or non-cardiac critical illness. Patients with CAD and those with asymptomatic severe AS or moderate AS should be a focus for continued research in TAVR.Abstract: Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.