Key result
SAVR linked to ~256% greater odds of 6-month functional recovery versus TAVR in BAV patients.
Why the study?
TAVR is not always the optimal option for AS patients with bicuspid aortic valves and many studies exclude this population.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve major adverse cardiovascular events and functional capacity compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis?
Cohort (n=130)
No
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve major adverse cardiovascular events and functional capacity compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis?
In patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, SAVR is associated with better functional recovery at 6 months compared to TAVR, though MACE rates are similar.
May favor SAVR for functional recovery in bicuspid stenosis; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not always the optimal option for aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BcAVs) and many studies exclude this group of patients. The aim of our study was to compare the rate of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and functional capacity in AS patients with BcAV after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR. METHODS: This study included 130 patients who underwent SAVR or TAVR from July 2013 to August 2018 at the Cheng Hsin General Hospital. The main outcome was MACE. Events recorded included noncardiovascular (CV) mortality, CV mortality, recurrent nonfatal stroke, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and important events. The secondary outcome was functional recovery, which was defined according to the metabolic equivalent (MET) 6 months after the aortic procedure. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 56.8 ± 26.9 years and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.29 ± 4.69. Logistic regression analyses indicated that SAVR was a significant predictor of functional recovery. Patients who underwent SAVR had a higher rate of functional recovery (>3 METs; 87.8%, p = .000) and had a significantly higher odds ratio (3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-10.63, p = .023). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the MACE rate was not associated with the aortic procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that SAVR is a significant predictor of better functional recovery and TAVR is associated with a lower level of functional capacity. In summary, TAVR is an acceptable option for AS patients with BcAV, and for a better prognosis, an early intervention aimed at improving functional capacity is highly recommended for this group of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsai et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve stenosis with bicuspid aortic valves (n=130). Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves was associated with better functional recovery at 6 months compared to TAVR (OR 3.56; 95% CI 1.19-10.63; P=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: