Blog

– Additional Phase 3 PURPOSE data reinforce the safety profile of twice-yearly Yeztugo® as an effective HIV prevention option across diverse populations –

– New data show higher treatment satisfaction after switching from IM CAB+RPV to Biktarvy® –

– New research reaffirms Veklury® in high-risk COVID-19 populations and obeldesivir in emerging pathogens –

Read the full company press release here.

 

COPENHAGEN, Denmark—Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low- or intermediate-risk for surgery who also have very calcified aortic valves, SAVR is associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality, paravalvular regurgitation, and heart failure hospitalization compared with TAVI, according to new single-center data.

“[A] calcium score could potentially be an important criteria to consider when deciding between TAVI versus SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients,” said Fadi Hage, MD (Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, PA), who presented the findings at the 2025 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery meeting. “Further investigation into predictors of outcomes in lower-risk patients is warranted to improve patient selection and [make] a more informed heart team discussion.”

Session moderator Alicja Zientara, MD (Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Germany), said the results highlight the need for imaging in assessing patients for TAVI.

“It’s not only about the clinical risk factors of patients and choosing the right valve, but very much about imaging and evaluating if a TAVR is very well feasible for a patient,” she told TCTMD. “We know that there is a risk of aortic regurgitation and there is a risk of pacemaker, and not every patient necessarily is the right one for this kind of treatment. So, we as surgeons have to work very much on implementing regular imaging in our daily practice to also evaluate the valve, like cardiologists do.”

Better Outcomes With SAVR

The analysis included 227 patients who underwent TAVI (mean age 82 years; 77% male) and 99 who had SAVR (mean age 68 years; 88% male) at their institution between June 2021 and December 2023. All patients were considered low-to-intermediate risk for surgery and had a high aortic valve calcium score (≥ 3,000 Agatston units). More patients in the TAVI arm had peripheral vascular disease (20% vs 6%) and fewer had bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (4% vs 39%) than in the surgery arm.

In a propensity score-matched analysis, survival at 2 years was higher in the SAVR arm compared with TAVI (HR 0.17; P = 0.001). The same relationship was seen for freedom from paravalvular regurgitation (HR 0.05; P = 0.001) and heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.33; P = 0.045). Unadjusted analyses showed advantages for SAVR over TAVI with regard to survival and freedom from paravalvular regurgitation, but not freedom from heart failure rehospitalization.

There was a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker with TAVI compared with SAVR at 30 days (16% vs 6%; P = 0.01), but a lower rate of postoperative transfusion (7% vs 36%; P < 0.001).

During the discussion, session panelist Ferdinand Vogt, MD (Paracelsus Medical University Nürnberg, Germany), pointed out a challenge for surgeons. “In the real world, we don’t have for every surgical patient an Agatston score,” he said, questioning whether this creates a “bias” in real-world practice when patients are deciding between TAVI and surgery.

“It would be an important thing to consider,” Hage responded, adding that it’s not “very difficult to get” this information.

In an informal poll of the audience, about one-third in the room raised their hands indicating that they do send patients for calcium score imaging before the procedure.

Zientara said she was “a little” surprised by how few of the attendees use this kind of imaging in their workups. “But on the other hand, it’s always a hot topic,” she added. “We have new guidelines for the treatment of those patients where there are different opinions.”

Panelist Gregory Fontana, MD (Cardiovascular Institute of Los Robles Health System, Thousand Oaks, CA), commented that CT scans prior to SAVR have “become the gold standard” at his institution.

Hage, too, said he calculates his own CT measurements for each patient, enabling him to be “nonbiased.” As surgeons, he added, “we should select the right procedure for the right patients.”

WASHINGTON — NASA’s acting administrator says he plans to “open up the contract” SpaceX holds to land astronauts on the moon for the Artemis 3 mission because the company has fallen behind schedule.

In appearances on CNBC and Fox News on Oct. 20, NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy said NASA would allow other companies to compete to land astronauts on the moon for Artemis 3, a mission currently assigned to SpaceX’s Starship under a Human Landing System (HLS) contract awarded in 2021.

“SpaceX had the contract for Artemis 3,” Duffy said on CNBC. “The problem is they’re behind. They push their timelines out, and we’re in a race against China. The president and I want to get to the moon in this president’s term.”

“So, I’m going to open up the contract,” he continued. “I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX, like Blue Origin, and again, whatever one can get us there first, to the moon, we’re going to take.”

Duffy made similar remarks on Fox News. “SpaceX has the contract. SpaceX is an amazing company. They do remarkable things, but they’re behind schedule,” he said. “So, I’m in the process of opening that contract up.”

“We’re going to have a space race in regard to American companies competing to see who can actually get us back to the moon first,” he said.

Duffy did not explain how such a “space race” would work or how it would be funded. Asked for further details, Bethany Stevens, NASA’s press secretary, provided only transcripts of Duffy’s television appearances. Most of NASA’s public affairs staff are currently furloughed because of the government shutdown that began Oct. 1.

The comments are the first public acknowledgment by NASA’s acting leader that development of the HLS version of Starship is behind schedule. Duffy previously maintained that Artemis 3 would launch in 2027, the agency’s official target, even as multiple Starship test flight failures earlier this year made that timeline increasingly unlikely.

In late July, Duffy told social media influencers attending the Crew-11 launch that SpaceX executives, including company president Gwynne Shotwell, assured him Starship would be ready for Artemis 3. “They feel very comfortable on Starship. They feel like they’re on pace for the lander,” he said then. “They said if there’s a holdup for Artemis 3, it’s not going to be them.”

After former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine told a Senate committee in September it was unlikely the United States would return humans to the moon before China’s first crewed landing, Duffy pushed back. “We are going to beat the Chinese to the moon. We are going to make sure that we do this safely. We’re going to do it fast. We’re going to do it right,” he said in an internal NASA town hall, without suggesting a change in approach for Artemis 3.

In his Oct. 20 interviews, Duffy acknowledged that Artemis 3 likely would not launch in 2027. On CNBC, after discussing Artemis 2’s planned launch as soon as next February, he said that “Artemis 3 comes a couple years after that.”

One of the competitors Duffy mentioned was Blue Origin, which has a separate HLS award to develop its Blue Moon Mark 2 lander for missions beginning with Artemis 5. The company reportedly has studied ways to adapt its smaller Blue Moon Mark 1 lander for a crewed mission, although one industry source described those concepts as “jury-rigged” and noted that Mark 1 currently cannot lift off from the lunar surface with any useful payload.

Other companies are also examining lunar lander concepts. “Throughout this year, Lockheed Martin has been performing significant technical and programmatic analysis for human lunar landers that would provide options to NASA for a safe solution to return humans to the moon as quickly as possible,” Bob Behnken, vice president of exploration and technology strategy at Lockheed Martin Space, said in a statement.

“We have been working with a cross-industry team of companies, and together we are looking forward to addressing Secretary Duffy’s request to meet our country’s lunar objectives,” he said, without providing details about the Lockheed lander concept.

SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk appeared unconcerned about potential competition. “They won’t,” he said in a social media post responding to a comment that it was “silly” to think another company would have a lander ready before Starship. “SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.”

“Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole moon mission. Mark my words,” he added.

Related