Key result
In high-risk Chinese patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, bicuspid aortic valve anatomy was associated with similar 30-day mortality (6.7% vs. 8.0%) compared to tricuspid anatomy.
Why the study?
Does TAVI provide similar safety and efficacy in high surgical risk patients with severe stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to those with tricuspid aortic valve?
Population
40 high surgical risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI at a…
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using… vs Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Supports TAVI consideration in high-risk Chinese bicuspid cases; leaves open need for randomized confirmation on efficacy and durability.
Cohort (n=40)
No
Does TAVI provide similar safety and efficacy in high surgical risk patients with severe stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to those with tricuspid aortic valve?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.7% vs 8%
p-value: p=1.00
TAVI appears safe and feasible for high surgical risk patients with severe stenotic bicuspid aortic valves in a Chinese population, yielding 30-day clinical outcomes comparable to those with tricuspid aortic valves.
Liu et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (n=40). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) anatomy vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) anatomy was evaluated on 30-day all-cause mortality (p=1.00). In high-risk Chinese patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, bicuspid aortic valve anatomy was associated with similar 30-day mortality (6.7% vs. 8.0%) compared to tricuspid anatomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: