Key result
New-generation TAVR in bicuspid AS is linked to ~9% less moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak vs early devices.
Why the study?
Few studies have evaluated clinical outcomes of TAVR in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, with limited data comparing new-generation versus early-generation devices.
Cohort (n=301)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational study reveals improved device success with new-generation prostheses in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, indicating enhanced safety.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). Particularly, limited data exist comparing the results of TAVR with new-generation devices versus early-generation devices. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS with early- and new-generation devices. METHODS: The Bicuspid TAVR Registry is an international multicenter study enrolling consecutive patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR between April 2005 and May 2015. RESULTS: Of 301 patients, 199 patients (71.1%) were treated with early-generation devices (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, California]: n = 87; CoreValve [Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota]: n = 112) and 102 with new-generation devices (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation]: n = 91; Lotus [Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts]: n = 11). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.7 ± 5.2 without significant differences between groups (4.6 ± 5.1 vs. 4.9 ± 5.4; p = 0.57). Overall, all-cause mortality rates were 4.3% at 30 days and 14.4% at 1 year. Moderate or severe paravalvular leak was absent and significantly less frequent with new-generation compared to early-generation devices (0.0% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.002), which resulted in a higher device success rate (92.2% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.01). There were no differences between early- and new-generation devices in stroke (2.5% vs. 2.0%; p > 0.99), life-threatening bleeding (3.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.76), stage 2 to 3 acute kidney injury (2.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), early safety endpoints (15.1% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.30), and 30-day all-cause mortality (4.5% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AS were favorable. New-generation devices were associated with less paravalvular leak and, hence, a higher device success rate than early-generation devices. (The Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry [Bicuspid TAVR]; NCT02394184).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (n=301). TAVR with new-generation devices vs. TAVR with early-generation devices was evaluated on Moderate or severe paravalvular leak (p=0.002). TAVR with new-generation devices in bicuspid aortic stenosis was associated with less moderate or severe paravalvular leak (0.0% vs 8.5%, p=0.002) and higher device success than early devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: