Importance: Transcatheter 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. Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-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. Exposures: TAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment. Results: Of 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 Relevance: In 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.
Importance: Transcatheter 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. Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-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. Exposures: TAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment. Results: Of 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 Relevance: In 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.
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John Spertus; Eric Peterson; Mark W Conard; Paul A Heidenreich; Harlan M Krumholz; Philip Jones; Peter A McCullough; Ileana Pina; Joseph Tooley; William S Weintraub; John S Rumsfeld Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Sorel Goland; Lawrence S C Czer; Michele A De Robertis; James Mirocha; Robert M Kass; Gregory P Fontana; Wen Chang; Alfredo Trento Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Gabriel E Soto; Philip Jones; William S Weintraub; Harlan M Krumholz; John A Spertus Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tian-Yuan Xiong; Walid Ben Ali; Yuan Feng; Kentaro Hayashida; Hasan Jilaihawi; Azeem Latib; Michael Kang-Yin Lee; Martin B Leon; Raj R Makkar; Thomas Modine; Christoph Naber; Yong Peng; Nicolo Piazza; Michael J Reardon; Simon Redwood; Ashok Seth; Lars Sondergaard; Edgar Tay; Didier Tchetche; Wei-Hsian Yin; Mao Chen; Bernard Prendergast; Darren Mylotte Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Ole de Backer; Tobias Zeus; Verena Veulemans; Philippe Nuyens; Shouheng Goh; Oliver Maier; Stephan Binnebößel; Jacqueline Heermann; Christian Jung; Ralf Westenfeld; Malte Kelm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Raj R Makkar; Sung-Han Yoon; Tarun Chakravarty; Samir R Kapadia; Amar Krishnaswamy; Pinak B Shah; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Eric R Skipper; Michael Rinaldi; Vasilis Babaliaros; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Alfredo Trento; Wen Cheng; Susheel Kodali; Michael J Mack; Martin B Leon; Vinod H Thourani Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aleksandra Gasecka; Michał Walczewski; Adam Witkowski; Maciej Dabrowski; Zenon Huczek; Radosław Wilimski; Andrzej Ochała; Radosław Parma; Piotr Scisło; Bartosz Rymuza; Karol Zbroński; Piotr Szwed; Marek Grygier; Anna Olasińska-Wiśniewska; Dariusz Jagielak; Radosław Targoński; Grzegorz Opolski; Janusz Kochman Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-21
Authors: Adam S Evans; Menachem M Weiner; Shahzad Shaefi; Prakash A Patel; Matthew M Townsley; Abirami Kumaresan; Jared W Feinman; Ashley V Fritz; Archer K Martin; Toby B Steinberg; J Ross Renew; Jane L Gui; Brian Radvansky; Himani Bhatt; Sudhakar Subramani; Archit Sharma; Jacob T Gutsche; John G Augoustides; Harish Ramakrishna Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Hector I Michelena; Alessandro Della Corte; Arturo Evangelista; Joseph J Maleszewski; William D Edwards; Mary J Roman; Richard B Devereux; Borja Fernández; Federico M Asch; Alex J Barker; Lilia M Sierra-Galan; Laurent De Kerchove; Susan M Fernandes; Paul W M Fedak; Evaldas Girdauskas; Victoria Delgado; Suhny Abbara; Emmanuel Lansac; Siddharth K Prakash; Malenka M Bissell; Bogdan A Popescu; Michael D Hope; Marta Sitges; Vinod H Thourani; Phillippe Pibarot; Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran; Patrizio Lancellotti; Michael A Borger; John K Forrest; John Webb; Dianna M Milewicz; Raj Makkaar; Martin B Leon; Stephen P Sanders; Michael Markl; Victor A Ferrari; William C Roberts; Jae-Kwan Song; Philipp Blanke; Charles S White; Samuel Siu; Lars G Svensson; Alan C Braverman; Joseph Bavaria; Thoralf M Sundt; Gebrine El Khoury; Ruggero De Paulis; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Jeroen J Bax; Catherine M Otto; Hans-Joachim Schäfers Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-07-22
Authors: Jonathan M Michel; Antonio H Frangieh; Daniele Giacoppo; Hector A Alvarez-Covarrubias; Costanza Pellegrini; Tobias Rheude; Oliver Deutsch; N Patrick Mayr; P Moritz Rumpf; Barbara E Stähli; Adnan Kastrati; Heribert Schunkert; Erion Xhepa; Michael Joner; A Markus Kasel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 5.460