Ayman Elbadawi1, Marwan Saad2, Islam Y Elgendy3, Kirolos Barssoum4, Mohamed A Omer5, Ahmed Soliman6, Mohamed F Almahmoud7, Gbolahan O Ogunbayo8, Amgad Mentias9, Syed Gilani7, Hani Jneid10, Herbert D Aronow11, Neil Kleiman6, J Dawn Abbott11. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: amelbada@utmb.edu. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt; Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, New York. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 8. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 9. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 10. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 11. Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking. METHODS: The study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS. RESULTS: The analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (ptrend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking. METHODS: The study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS. RESULTS: The analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (ptrend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.
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: 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: Bartlomiej Perek; Anna Olasinska-Wisniewska; Marcin Misterski; Mateusz Puslecki; Marek Grygier; Piotr Buczkowski; Maciej Lesiak; Tomasz Stankowski; Lukasz Szarpak; Kurt Ruetzler; Oguz Turan; Marek Jemielity Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Marco Gennari; Gilbert H L Tang; Maurizio Taramasso; Giulio Russo; Philipp K Haager; Marco Barbanti; Ana Paula Tagliari; Francesco Maisano Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2022-03-06 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Annastiina Husso; Juhani Airaksinen; Tatu Juvonen; Mika Laine; Sebastian Dahlbacka; Marko Virtanen; Matti Niemelä; Timo Mäkikallio; Mikko Savontaus; Markku Eskola; Peter Raivio; Antti Valtola; Fausto Biancari Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 5.460