Key result
TAVR yields similar 1-year major event rates to SAVR in bicuspid aortic stenosis.
Why the study?
Patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis are often excluded from studies comparing TAVR and SAVR, making more comparative data crucial for treatment selection.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, rehospitalization, or valve dysfunction compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 65 years and older with bicuspid aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=997)
Yes
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, rehospitalization, or valve dysfunction compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 65 years and older with bicuspid aortic stenosis?
Effect estimate: HR 1.35 (95% CI 0.83-2.19)
Absolute Event Rate: 15% vs 12%
p-value: p=0.23
In older patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, TAVR and SAVR had similar 1-year composite outcomes, but TAVR was associated with significantly higher risks of stroke and valve dysfunction at 2 years.
Comparable composite outcomes after TAVR versus SAVR should not alter practice; leaves open durability and stroke risks in observational data.
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has shown noninferiority to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis are often excluded from these studies. More insights between these procedures in this population is crucial for treatment selection. Methods In this multicenter observational study, patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR or SAVR were analyzed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was a composite of all‐cause mortality, stroke, rehospitalization, or valve dysfunction at 1 year. Results A total of 997 patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis underwent TAVR or SAVR. In the matched cohort of 256 pairs, the median age was 75.0 years (interquartile range, 71.0–78.0), 234 (44.9%) were women, and the median EuroScore II was 1.83% (interquartile range, 1.34–2.86). One‐year cumulative incidence of the primary outcome was 15.0% in TAVR compared with 12.0% in SAVR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 0.83–2.19], P =0.23). Mortality (4.3% versus 5.0%, P =0.72) and rehospitalization (4.8% versus 6.4%, P =0.45) were similar between groups. Although rates of valve dysfunction (2.9% versus 0.5%, P =0.06) and stroke (5.3% versus 2.3%, P =0.10) were numerically lower in the surgical group at 1 year, both the risk of stroke (subdistribution HR, 3.01, P =0.02) and valve dysfunction (subdistribution HR, 4.16, P =0.03) were significantly higher in the TAVR group at 2 years. Conclusions TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis showed a similar 1‐year primary outcome rate compared with SAVR, though TAVR exhibited higher rates of valve dysfunction and stroke. These findings underscore the need for randomized trials to define the optimal treatment strategy for this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hemelrijk et al. (2026) conducted an observational in bicuspid aortic stenosis (n=997). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, rehospitalization, or valve dysfunction at 1 year (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.83-2.19, p=0.23). TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis resulted in a similar 1-year rate of the primary composite outcome compared with SAVR (15.0% vs 12.0%; HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.83-2.19; P=0.23).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: