Long-Term Mortality After TAVI for Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis: A Propensity-Matched Multicentre Cohort Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal trials of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared the in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients undergoing TAVI for bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.Methods
We performed a retrospective registry-based analysis on patients who underwent TAVI for BAV and TAV at five different centers between January 2009 and August 2017. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, procedural complications, and valve performance.Results
Of 1,451 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, two propensity-matched cohorts consisting of 130 patients with BAV and 390 patients with TAV were analyzed. All-cause mortality was comparable in both groups up to 10 years following TAVI (HR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77-1.51). Device success and in-hospital mortality were comparable between the groups (96 vs. 95%, p = 0.554 and 2.3 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.863, respectively). Incidence of procedural complications was similar in both groups, with a trend toward a higher rate of stroke in patients with BAV (5 vs. 2%, p = 0.078). Incidence of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (PVL) at discharge was comparable in both groups (2 vs. 2%, p = 0.846). Among patients with BAV, all-cause mortality was similar in self-expanding and balloon-expandable prostheses (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52-1.99) and lower in new-generation devices compared to old-generation valves (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.62).Conclusion
Patients who had undergone TAVI for BAV had comparable mortality to patients with TAV up to 10 years after the procedure. The device success, in-hospital mortality, procedural complications, and PVL rate were comparable between the groups. The high rate of neurological complications (5%) in patients with BAV warrants further investigation.
SUBMITTER: Gasecka A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9253589 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare 1-year outcomes in patients at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and low-risk patients with tricuspid AS following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundThe pivotal randomized, prospective, multicenter TAVR trials compared TAVR vs SAVR in patients with tricuspid AS. No such trials exist for bicuspid AS.MethodsThe Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled 150 patients from 25 sites in the United States. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification based on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Annular measurements guided valve sizing. These patients were propensity-matched to the SAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using 1:1 5-to-1-digit Greedy method, resulting in 144 matched pairs. For both trials, an independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and the same independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms.ResultsThe 1-year composite of death, disabling stroke, or aortic valve-related rehospitalization for bicuspid TAVR vs tricuspid SAVR was 6 (4.2%) vs 6 (4.2%) (P = .99). The effective orifice area (2.2 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 2.0 ± 0.6 cm2) was larger and the valve gradient was lower (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 11.2 ± 4.7 mm Hg) in the TAVR group at 1 year (both P < .001). Moderate/severe aortic regurgitation was present in 1 TAVR and 2 SAVR patients (0.8% vs 1.6%; P > .99).ConclusionsIn this select group of low-risk bicuspid patients, in the short-term follow-up, TAVR appears to have similar outcomes to those seen in comparable low-risk tricuspid patients undergoing SAVR.
| S-EPMC11307701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, leading to an increasing number of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Pivotal randomized trials conducted to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval excluded bicuspid anatomy.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Design, setting, and participantsRegistry-based prospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 552 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to November 2018.ExposuresTAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment.ResultsOf 81 822 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (2726 bicuspid; 79 096 tricuspid), 2691 propensity-score matched pairs of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis were analyzed (median age, 74 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 66-81 years]; 39.1%, women; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 4.9% [4.0%] and 5.1% [4.2%], respectively). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at 30 days (2.6% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, [95% CI, 0.74-1.47]) and 1 year (10.5% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10]). The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis (2.5% vs 1.6%; HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.33]). The risk of procedural complications requiring open heart surgery was significantly higher in the bicuspid vs tricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]). There were no significant differences in valve hemodynamics. There were no significant differences in moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days (2.0% vs 2.4%; absolute RD, 0.3% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0.7%]) and 1 year (3.2% vs 2.5%; absolute RD, 0.7% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.7%]). At 1 year there was no significant difference in improvement in quality of life between the groups (difference in improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, -2.4 [95% CI, -5.1 to 0.3]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality but had increased 30-day risk for stroke. Because of the potential for selection bias and the absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.
| S-EPMC6563564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) might be a feasible treatment option for more patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis. However, long-term follow-up data in this population are scarce.AimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate three-year outcomes after TAVI in patients with BAV.MethodsA total of 246 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI at a single centre in China between March 2013 and February 2018 were enrolled in this study. Clinical outcomes, health status and echocardiography were followed and recorded for three years.ResultsAmong 109 (44.3%) BAV patients, 61.5% were Type 0 and 36.7% were Type 1 BAV patients. BAV patients were younger (75 vs 77 years, p=0.041) and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (5.09 vs 6.00, p=0.026) compared to tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients. There were no differences in three-year survival rates between bicuspid and tricuspid patients (87.1% vs 79.5%, log-rank p=0.126). Multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusting for confounding factors revealed a similar risk of all-cause mortality in the BAV population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.70, p=0.666). Except for the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation that was lower in BAV patients (11.9% vs 21.9%, p=0.041), the incidence of other clinical adverse events was comparable between the two groups. Both BAV and TAV patients showed an obvious improvement in valve haemodynamics, which was sustained for three years. In addition, similar left ventricular reverse remodelling was found during follow-up.ConclusionsBAV patients showed similar satisfactory three-year clinical outcomes, persistent valve haemodynamics improvement, and obvious cardiac reverse remodelling after TAVI compared to TAV patients.
| S-EPMC9912961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare aortic size and stiffness parameters on MRI between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS:MRI was performed in 174 patients with asymptomatic moderate-severe AS (mean AVAI 0.57?±?0.14 cm2/m2) and 23 controls on 3T scanners. Valve morphology was available/analysable in 169 patients: 63 BAV (41 type-I, 22 type-II) and 106 TAV. Aortic cross-sectional areas were measured at the level of the pulmonary artery bifurcation. The ascending and descending aorta (AA, DA) distensibility, and pulse wave velocity (PWV) around the aortic arch were calculated. RESULTS:The AA and DA areas were lower in the controls, with no difference in DA distensibility or PWV, but slightly lower AA distensibility than in the patient group. With increasing age, there was a decrease in distensibility and an increase in PWV. After correcting for age, the AA maximum cross-sectional area was higher in bicuspid vs. tricuspid patients (12.97 [11.10, 15.59] vs. 10.06 [8.57, 12.04] cm2, p?<?0.001), but there were no significant differences in AA distensibility (p?=?0.099), DA distensibility (p?=?0.498) or PWV (p?=?0.235). Patients with BAV type-II valves demonstrated a significantly higher AA distensibility and lower PWV compared to type-I, despite a trend towards higher AA area. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with significant AS, BAV patients do not have increased aortic stiffness compared to those with TAV despite increased ascending aortic dimensions. Those with type-II BAV have less aortic stiffness despite greater dimensions. These results demonstrate a dissociation between aortic dilatation and stiffness and suggest that altered flow patterns may play a role. KEY POINTS:• Both cellular abnormalities secondary to genetic differences and abnormal flow patterns have been implicated in the pathophysiology of aortic dilatation and increased vascular complications associated with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). • We demonstrate an increased ascending aortic size in patients with BAV and moderate to severe AS compared to TAV and controls, but no difference in aortic stiffness parameters, therefore suggesting a dissociation between dilatation and stiffness. • Sub-group analysis showed greater aortic size but lower stiffness parameters in those with BAV type-II AS compared to BAV type-I.
| S-EPMC6443917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) is an important sequela that compromises the durability of the bioprosthetic valve. Objectives: To better determine the effect of SLT in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), we performed a retrospective assessment of CT-defined SLT in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenotic patients. Methods: We consecutively collected patients undergoing the TAVR between August 2015 and March 2020 in our center. A total of 170 BAV and 201 TAV cases were enrolled. Multidetector computed tomography was performed within 30 days and at 1-year. Results: Twenty cases in the BAV group and 19 cases in the TAV group had hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) in 30 days (12.5 vs. 9.9%, p = 0.449), and 52 cases in BAV and 61 cases in TAV had the HALT (34.9 vs. 36.7%, p = 0.733) at 1-year follow-up. The mean aortic gradient (MAG) and effective orifice areas (EOA) values were comparable between the two groups at 30 days (HALT vs. no HALT; 10.8 ± 4.8 vs. 11.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.638; 1.6 ± 0.4 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3, p = 0.724), and still, no difference was observed in the MAG at 1-year (11.5 ± 5.6 vs. 10.6 ± 5.1, p = 0.164). However, the EOA at 1-year was statistically different between the two groups (1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.4, p = 0.004). The multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated the anticoagulation and age as independent predictors both in the BAV and TAV groups at 1-year. There was no difference in clinical events between the HALT and no HALT group in relevant to BAV or TAV at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: The presence of subclinical leaflet thrombosis defined by the CT was comparable between the BAV and TAV in the first year after the TAVR procedure. Age and anticoagulation were the independent predictors of the subclinical leaflet thrombosis at 1 year after the TAVR. There was no difference in relevant clinical events between the BAV and TAV groups at 1-year follow-up.
| S-EPMC8727537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The preferred access for TAVR is transfemoral (TF). Alternatives include the transapical (TA), trans-subclavian (TS), and direct aortic (TAo) approaches.HypothesisThe TF approach is associated with lower in-hospital outcomes as well as shorter length of stay and lower cost of hospitalization.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 through 2014 was used to obtain the TAVR study population. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were utilized to identify the 2 groups. In-hospital outcomes were compared in propensity-score-matched (1:3) cohorts, in which we took TA-TAVR as a control.ResultsA total of 8210 (weighted N = 41 050) patients were identified. Of these, 1622 (weighted N = 8110) patients underwent TA-TAVR and 6588 (weighted N = 32 940) patients underwent TF-TAVR. In-hospital mortality was lower with TF-TAVR (4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.0355), along with a shorter length of stay (7.7 vs 9.7 days; P < 0.0001) and lower median hospitalization cost ($64 216 vs $74 735; P < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes of acute renal failure, transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and composite of all complications were lower with TF-TAVR.ConclusionsTF-TAVR is safer and associated with lower in-hospital outcomes compared with TA-TAVR and should be the preferred approach. As TAVR is gaining popularity in intermediate- and low-risk patients, we must not lose sight of the serious mortality and secondary outcomes associated with TA-TAVR access.
| S-EPMC6490061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo explore why bicuspid aortic stenosis has certain clinical differences from the tricuspid morphology, we evaluated the metabolomics profile involved in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortic stenosis prior to and after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).MethodsIn this TAVR cohort with prospectively collected data, blood samples were obtained before TAVR valve deployment and at the 7th day after TAVR, which were then sent for liquid and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry detection. Besides comparisons between BAV and TAV, BAV patients were also divided in subgroups according to baseline hemodynamics (i.e. maximal transaortic velocity, Vmax) and post-procedural reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling (i.e. the change in LV mass index from baseline, ∆LVMI) for further analysis. Metabolic differences between groups were identified by integrating univariate test, multivariate analysis and weighted correlation network analysis algorithm.ResultsA total of 57 patients were enrolled including 33 BAV patients. The BAV group showed lower arginine and proline metabolism both before and post TAVR than TAV represented by decreased expression of L-Glutamine. In BAV subgroup analysis, patients with baseline Vmax > 5 m/s (n = 11) or the 4th quartile of change in ∆LVMI at one-year follow-up (i.e. poorly-recovered LV, n = 8) showed elevated arachidonic acid metabolism compared with Vmax < 4.5 m/s (n = 12) or the 1st quartile of ∆LVMI (i.e. well-recovered LV, n = 8) respectively.ConclusionsDifference in arginine and proline metabolism was identified between BAV and TAV in TAVR recipients. Elevated arachidonic acid metabolism may reflect more severe baseline hemodynamics and worse LV reserve remodeling after TAVR in BAV.
| S-EPMC7236099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the effects of preprocedural significant mitral regurgitation (MR) and change in MR severity upon mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN system.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 316 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI for aortic stenosis at a single centre in the UK between March 2008 and January 2013. Patients were stratified into two groups according to severity of MR: ≥grade 3 were classed as significant and ≤grade 2 were non-significant. Change in MR severity was assessed by comparison of baseline and 30-day echocardiograms.Results60 patients had significant MR prior to TAVI (19.0%). These patients were of higher perioperative risk (logistic EuroScore 28.7±16.6% vs 20.3±10.7%, p=0.004) and were more dyspnoeic (New York Heart Association class IV 20.0% vs 7.4%, p=0.014). Patients with significant preprocedural MR displayed greater 12-month and cumulative mortality (28.3% vs 20.2%, log-rank p=0.024). Significant MR was independently associated with mortality (HR 4.94 (95% CI 2.07 to 11.8), p<0.001). Of the 60 patients with significant MR only 47.1% had grade 3-4 MR at 30 days (p<0.001). Patients in whom MR improved had lower mortality than those in whom it deteriorated (log-rank p=0.05).ConclusionsSignificant MR is frequently seen in patients undergoing TAVI and is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality. Yet almost half also exhibit significant improvements in MR severity. Those who improve have better outcomes, and future work could focus upon identifying factors independently associated with such an improvement.
| S-EPMC4215343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the long-term survival and rate of reoperation after surgical treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).MethodsBetween 1997 and 2017, 210 patients underwent surgical treatment for native aortic valve endocarditis, including 51 patients with BAV (24%) and 159 patients with TAV (76%). Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data warehouse and hospital medical record review, supplemented with surveys and national death index data for more complete follow-up.ResultsCompared with the TAV IE group, the BAV IE group was significantly younger (42 years vs 54 years) and had lower incidence rates of hypertension, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure (CHF). There were no significant between-group differences in postoperative stroke, sepsis, pacemaker requirement, or in-hospital mortality (2.0% vs 4.4%). Liver disease was a risk factor for operative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 13; 95% CI, 3.3-30; P = .0002). The 10-year survival rate was 64% for the BAV group versus 46% for the TAV group (P = .0191). Significant risk factors for long-term mortality were intravenous drug use (hazard ratio [HR], 4.5; P < .0001), preoperative renal failure requiring dialysis (HR, 4.13; P < .0001), CHF (HR, 1.7; P = .04), and liver disease (HR, 2.6; P = .02). The HR for BAV was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.4). The 10-year postoperative cumulative incidence of reoperation was significantly higher in the BAV patients compared with the TAV patients (5.7% vs 4.5%; P = .045) with an HR of 2.4 (95% CI, 0.8-7.1; P = .11) for BAV.ConclusionsBAV patients develop IE requiring surgery at a younger age than TAV patients, but have significantly better long-term survival. Early detection of BAV is important to prevent IE and provide aggressive surgical treatment should IE occur.
| S-EPMC9390515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine long-term survival and reoperation rate in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) after stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR)/aortic root replacement (ARR).MethodsBetween 1992 and 2014, 1293 patients underwent first AVR/ARR with a stentless aortic valve using the modified inclusion operating technique, including 741 patients with a TAV and 552 with a BAV. Using propensity scoring with 26 variables, 330 matched pairs were identified with AVR with or without ascending aorta/arch replacement. Data were obtained through chart review, surveys, and the National Death Index.ResultsPatient demographics were similar in the propensity score-matched groups. Both groups had similar cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermia circulatory arrest times, cerebral protection strategies, and rate of aortic arch replacement. The median size of implanted valves was similar (BAV: 27 mm [range, 25-29 mm] vs TAV: 27 mm [range, 25-27 mm]). Compared with the TAV group, the BAV group had a shorter hospital stay (6 days vs 7 days; P = .001) but similar 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 1.2%). The BAV group had better long-term (15-year) survival (46% vs 33%; P = .002) but a higher cumulative incidence of reoperation for structural valve deterioration (15-year: 15% vs 11%; P = .048). Cox proportional hazard analysis identified a BAV as a protective factor for long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91; P = .006), but a risk factor for reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.8-2.6; P = .27] in the matched cohort and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P = .004] in the unmatched cohort).ConclusionsThe BAV patients had better long-term survival but a higher reoperation rate compared with TAV patients after stentless AVR. Our findings suggest caution in the use of bioprostheses for BAV patients.
| S-EPMC9390591 | biostudies-literature