Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis yielded comparable 1-year mortality across type 0 bicuspid (10%), type 1 bicuspid (2.3%), and tricuspid (6.2%) anatomies (P=0.099).
Cohort (n=1,272)
No
severe aortic stenosis (n=1,272)
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs Type 0 bicuspid vs type 1 bicuspid vs tricuspid anatomy
mortality, p=0.099
p-value: p=0.099
BACKGROUND: Data concerning the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. The study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe AS between 2012 and 2022 in this single-center retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was mortality, while secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications such as stroke and pacemaker implantation and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic performance. RESULTS: The number of patients with AS with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy was 328, 302, and 642, respectively. Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves were used in the majority of patients (n=1160; 91.4%). In the matched population, differences in mortality (30 days: 4.2% versus 1.7% versus 1.7%, P overall =0.522; 1 year: 10% versus 2.3% versus 6.2%, P overall =0.099) and all stroke (30 days: 1.0% versus 0.9% versus 0.0%, P overall =0.765; 1 year: 1.4% versus 1.6% versus 1.3%, P overall =NS) were nonsignificant, and the incidence of overall in-hospital complications was comparable among groups. Ascending aortic diameter was the single predictor of 1-year mortality in type 0 bicuspid patients (hazard ratio, 1.59 95% CI, 1.03–2.44; P =0.035). The proportion of patients with a mean residual gradient ≥20 mm Hg was the highest in those with type 0 bicuspid anatomy, although the need for permanent pacemaker implantation was the lowest in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Major clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy are equivalent at short- and mid-term follow-up. These observations merit further exploration in prospective international registries and randomized controlled trials.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Jingjing He
Zhejiang Normal University
Tian‐Yuan Xiong
Sichuan University
Yijun Yao
Sichuan University
Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions
McGill University
Sun Yat-sen University
Sichuan University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
He et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in severe aortic stenosis (n=1,272). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. Type 0 bicuspid vs type 1 bicuspid vs tricuspid anatomy was evaluated on mortality (p=0.099). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis yielded comparable 1-year mortality across type 0 bicuspid (10%), type 1 bicuspid (2.3%), and tricuspid (6.2%) anatomies (P=0.099).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a11e3d4c031bb6829a58132 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.123.013083