| Affiliation: | 1. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA;2. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA;3. Center for Structural Heart Disease, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA;4. Emory University Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA;5. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA;6. Baylor Scott and White Health, Plano, Texas, USA;7. St. Paul’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;8. Department of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada;9. Columbia University Irving Medical Center/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA;10. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York, USA;11. St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, USA;12. Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;13. Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesThe study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology.BackgroundThere are limited prospective data on TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 device in low-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and bicuspid anatomy.MethodsLow-risk, severe aortic stenosis patients with BAV were candidates for the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) (P3) bicuspid registry or the P3 bicuspid continued access protocol. Patients treated in these registries were pooled and propensity score matched to TAV patients from the P3 randomized TAVR trial. Outcomes were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of death, stroke, and cardiovascular rehospitalization.ResultsOf 320 total submitted BAV patients, 169 (53%) were treated, and most were Sievers type 1. The remaining 151 patients were excluded caused by anatomic or clinical criteria. Propensity score matching with the P3 TAVR cohort (496 patients) yielded 148 pairs. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics; however, BAV patients had larger annuli and they experienced longer procedure duration. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between BAV and TAV (10.9% vs 10.2%; P = 0.80) or in the rates of the individual components (death: 0.7% vs 1.4%; P = 0.58; stroke: 2.1% vs 2.0%; P = 0.99; cardiovascular rehospitalization: 9.6% vs 9.5%; P = 0.96).ConclusionsAmong highly select bicuspid aortic stenosis low-surgical-risk patients without extensive raphe or subannular calcification, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrated similar outcomes to a matched cohort of patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis. |
