Why the study?
Indications for TAVI are expanding to younger patients where bicuspid aortic valves often occur, requiring an effective method for valve size selection to optimize outcomes.
Does TAVI with self-expanding prostheses using MSCT-based annular sizing provide similar outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valves compared to tricuspid aortic valves?
Does TAVI with self-expanding prostheses using MSCT-based annular sizing provide similar outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valves compared to tricuspid aortic valves?
TAVI using self-expanding prostheses with sizing based on MSCT annulus measurements is equally effective and safe in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves.
INTRODUCTION: Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are constantly expanding, including younger patients. Bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) often occur in this group. In order to achieve optimal treatment results in younger patients, it is necessary to develop an effective method for selecting the size of implanted valves. AIM: To compare the results of TAVI with use of a self-expanding prosthesis in patients with a BAV and a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) with valve selection based on annular sizing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The diagnosis of BAV and TAV and measurements (annular sizing) were based on multi-slice computed tomography scans. Eighty-three patients received a self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R prosthesis. In group I (BAV) there were 21 (25.3%) patients and in group II (TAV) there were 62 (74.7%) patients. RESULTS: = NS) in group I and II respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and BAV is as effective as in patients with TAV using self-expanding prostheses if the valve selection is based on annular sizing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chodór et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: