In December, Edwards Lifesciences
persuaded
CMS to publish an updated tracking sheet for TAVR national coverage analysis, causing the agency to reconsider its previous stance on covering transcatheter aortic valve replacements for Medicare beneficiaries.
The public comment period, which ran from December 15 to January 14, drew more than 150 responses on CMS’
website
, and was more controversial than many medtech groups expected.
In the 44-page letter written to CMS, Edwards asked CMS to expand the indication to include asymptomatic patients, sunset the coverage with evidence development requirements, and remove barriers to access related to pre-procedural, peri-procedural and infrastructure requirements, stating that the updated TAVR NCD could help improve efficiency in existing centers.
According to a survey conducted by analysts at BTIG, 44% of surveyed U.S. physicians believe that there would be a meaningful uptick in TAVR patients if these changes were made, citing reasons such as 'easier to schedule without a surgeon,' and '...would streamline logistics and reduce procedural scheduling barriers.'
While Edwards’ request for Medicare to cover TAVR in asymptomatic patients has received support from several medical groups, many physicians are cautioning against it, saying more research is still needed. In addition, Edwards competitor Medtronic is also speaking out against potential CMS coverage.
In May, Edwards
won
a nod from FDA to approve the Sapien 3 platform, a transcatheter aortic valve replacement therapy to treat patients without symptoms, suffering from severe aortic stenosis.
This was the first time FDA approved TAVR for asymptomatic patients. The Sapien 3 platform (Sapien 3, Sapien 3 Ultra, and Sapien 3 Ultra Resilia) has been approved based on data from the EARLY TAVR trial, which demonstrated that asymptomatic severe AS patients randomized to Edwards TAVR experienced superior outcomes compared to guideline-recommended clinical surveillance (watchful waiting).
In April, the company
secured
a CE mark for the Sapien M3 mitral valve. The approval was for the transcatheter treatment of patients with symptomatic (moderate-to-severe or severe) mitral regurgitation (MR) who are deemed unsuitable for surgery or transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) therapy. In 2024, Edwards
won
a nod from FDA for another groundbreaking technology: the company’s Evoque Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement technology.
In the CMS public comments, several physicians challenged Edwards’ Early TAVR clinical trial, which showed asymptomatic patients had better outcomes after having the procedure than those in a group that remained under clinical surveillance.
“While emerging trial data suggests potential benefit in select patients, treatment should be limited to carefully defined populations evaluated by a multidisciplinary Heart Team, with shared decision-making and continued evidence development to avoid inappropriate expansion and overtreatment,” Joseph Sabik, president of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, wrote to CMS.
“The ability to diagnose asymptomatic aortic stenosis and existing clinical guidelines are not yet mature enough for CMS to use for coverage without additional evidence development,” Jeff Farkas, Medtronic VP, wrote. “While evidence is emerging on TAVR as a treatment option for the asymptomatic aortic stenosis population, we caution that long-term outcomes will be important to establish and monitor for these patients.”
“Given the problems with the study design, CMS should be reluctant to make a coverage decision that would encourage Medicare asymptomatic beneficiaries to earlier lifelong device implantation, potential re-interventions, and downstream complications without clear evidence of survival or disability benefit,” Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted, arguing that early TAVR trial data do not justify broad national coverage, as they cannot be generalized to most Medicare beneficiaries because study patients were largely labeled as “low risk” for surgery.
Several major medical groups, including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, UCSF, also wrote in opposition to the update.
“On behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Program, we write to express strong concern regarding CMS’s consideration of removing the requirement that both a cardiac surgeon and an interventional cardiologist be involved in TAVR procedures. The Heart Team model is the foundation of safe and effective TAVR. It is not a formality. It is the clinical and safety architecture that allowed TAVR to move from experimental therapy to standard of care…TAVR carries the risk of catastrophic events including annular rupture, coronary obstruction, valve embolization, and cardiac or vascular perforation — situations that require immediate surgical decision-making and intervention. No protocol, remote consultation, or transfer agreement can substitute for a surgeon who is physically present and fully integrated into the procedural team,” a spokesperson for the university wrote.
Mulero Portela, MD, director of cardiovascular surgery at Mayaguez Medical Center, also noted that he believes many pro-TAVR studies on asymptomatic patients may be based in biased research.
“I am a cardiac surgeon and in short the answer is “no”, TAVR is not the solution for all. The real problem is that the trans-aortic valve replacement - TAVR (which is a misnomer, since the native valve is crushed and left in place, not replaced, and it should be called trans-aortic valve implantation - TAVI) is a fast growing business backed by the marketing of the manufacturing companies without having unbiased studies, it has no multiple or multi-center randomized clinical trials and no enough unbiased scientific data to support its indications in many cases. In the real world nowadays the so-called TARV is a one man show - the gatekeeper is diagnosing, grading and managing the aortic stenosis (AS) with no questioning and very little discussion of the benefits, risks, alternatives and consequences with the patients. There is a lot of data, publicly undisclosed and available only to the inquisitive mind, that clearly shows its inferiority to the surgical alternative, the surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including the high percentage of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and the low durability of the implanted valve with the TAVR due to its accelerated deterioration due to the severe trauma caused to the valve during the implantation thru the small caliber catheters, ballooning and the persistence of the sick calcified native valve, drawbacks that are all avoided during the SAVR,” he wrote.
“In my opinion, releasing the called TAVR for all asymptomatic patients with severe AS without revising the actual guidelines and indications by an unbiased committee, without having a serious independent analysis of the TAVR registry, and without having strong scientific evidence of benefits vs risks, is going to increase healthcare costs, may harm people with the wrong diagnosis and wrong timing, and it is going to increase hospital costs and mortality of the aortic valve surgery so badly that it may even disappear or has to be performed at very few super-subspecialized cardiovascular centers.”
On the other hand, five major medical societies issued comments in favor of CMS expansion, including The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, though the societies do recommend changes to the existing framework of the proposal.
Now that arguments have been made on both sides of the aisle, it’s time for TAVR supporters and opposers alike to sit in wait, A proposed decision memo is due June 15, 2026 and the final NCD is expected by September 13, 2026.