Why the study?
Does a balloon-expandable valve compared to a self-expandable valve improve outcomes or alter the complication profile in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis?
Does a balloon-expandable valve compared to a self-expandable valve improve outcomes or alter the complication profile in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis?
Both balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves are feasible for treating bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, but they present distinct complication profiles regarding paravalvular regurgitation and annular rupture.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Valve selection in bicuspid aortic stenosis should weigh distinct complication risks; observational data leaves open randomized head-to-head trials.
Our study confirms the feasibility of both Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was observed in the Evolut R/PRO group at 1-year follow-up in the matched cohort, although patients treated with balloon-expandable valve had a higher rate of annular rupture.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mangieri et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: