Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves

Anna Sannino, Ari Cedars, Robert C. Stoler, Molly Szerlip, Michael J. Mack, Paul A. Grayburn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has been considered a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with BAV with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) using balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. This retrospective study included 823 consecutive patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI in 2 institutions, Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital (Dallas, TX) and The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (Plano, TX), from January 2012 to February 2016. Efficacy was evaluated by postprocedural valve function as mean gradient, peak velocity, effective orifice area, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Safety end points included all-cause 30-day and 1-year mortality, immediate postprocedural mortality and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, procedural success, pacemaker implantation, and procedural complications. Of the 823 included patients, 735 had TAV and 77 had BAV. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Procedural success was high in both BAV and TAV (98.7% vs 99.1%, p = ns). There were no significant differences between groups in valve hemodynamics after TAVI, pacemaker implantation rate, or procedural complications. There were no differences regarding immediate postprocedural mortality (BAV vs TAV, 1.1% vs 0.8%, p = ns), nor 30-day cardiovascular mortality (3.4% vs 2.3%, p = ns). All-cause mortality at 30 days (3.4% vs 3.1%, p = ns) and 1-year (8.5% vs 10.5%) were similar. Patients with BAV showed similar procedural and clinical outcomes to patients with TAV. Therefore, TAVI appears to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with BAVs as well as those with TAVs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1601-1606
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume120
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tricuspid Valve
Bicuspid
Aortic Valve
Safety
Mortality
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Heart Valves
Blood Vessels
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Retrospective Studies
Hemodynamics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves. / Sannino, Anna; Cedars, Ari; Stoler, Robert C.; Szerlip, Molly; Mack, Michael J.; Grayburn, Paul A.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 120, No. 9, 01.11.2017, p. 1601-1606.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sannino, Anna ; Cedars, Ari ; Stoler, Robert C. ; Szerlip, Molly ; Mack, Michael J. ; Grayburn, Paul A. / Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves. In: American Journal of Cardiology. 2017 ; Vol. 120, No. 9. pp. 1601-1606.
@article{324fdaca8fbb400ebe748dbc9362d88a,
title = "Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves",
abstract = "Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has been considered a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with BAV with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) using balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. This retrospective study included 823 consecutive patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI in 2 institutions, Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital (Dallas, TX) and The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (Plano, TX), from January 2012 to February 2016. Efficacy was evaluated by postprocedural valve function as mean gradient, peak velocity, effective orifice area, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Safety end points included all-cause 30-day and 1-year mortality, immediate postprocedural mortality and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, procedural success, pacemaker implantation, and procedural complications. Of the 823 included patients, 735 had TAV and 77 had BAV. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Procedural success was high in both BAV and TAV (98.7{\%} vs 99.1{\%}, p = ns). There were no significant differences between groups in valve hemodynamics after TAVI, pacemaker implantation rate, or procedural complications. There were no differences regarding immediate postprocedural mortality (BAV vs TAV, 1.1{\%} vs 0.8{\%}, p = ns), nor 30-day cardiovascular mortality (3.4{\%} vs 2.3{\%}, p = ns). All-cause mortality at 30 days (3.4{\%} vs 3.1{\%}, p = ns) and 1-year (8.5{\%} vs 10.5{\%}) were similar. Patients with BAV showed similar procedural and clinical outcomes to patients with TAV. Therefore, TAVI appears to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with BAVs as well as those with TAVs.",
author = "Anna Sannino and Ari Cedars and Stoler, {Robert C.} and Molly Szerlip and Mack, {Michael J.} and Grayburn, {Paul A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.053",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "1601--1606",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves

AU - Sannino, Anna

AU - Cedars, Ari

AU - Stoler, Robert C.

AU - Szerlip, Molly

AU - Mack, Michael J.

AU - Grayburn, Paul A.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has been considered a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with BAV with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) using balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. This retrospective study included 823 consecutive patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI in 2 institutions, Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital (Dallas, TX) and The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (Plano, TX), from January 2012 to February 2016. Efficacy was evaluated by postprocedural valve function as mean gradient, peak velocity, effective orifice area, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Safety end points included all-cause 30-day and 1-year mortality, immediate postprocedural mortality and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, procedural success, pacemaker implantation, and procedural complications. Of the 823 included patients, 735 had TAV and 77 had BAV. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Procedural success was high in both BAV and TAV (98.7% vs 99.1%, p = ns). There were no significant differences between groups in valve hemodynamics after TAVI, pacemaker implantation rate, or procedural complications. There were no differences regarding immediate postprocedural mortality (BAV vs TAV, 1.1% vs 0.8%, p = ns), nor 30-day cardiovascular mortality (3.4% vs 2.3%, p = ns). All-cause mortality at 30 days (3.4% vs 3.1%, p = ns) and 1-year (8.5% vs 10.5%) were similar. Patients with BAV showed similar procedural and clinical outcomes to patients with TAV. Therefore, TAVI appears to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with BAVs as well as those with TAVs.

AB - Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has been considered a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with BAV with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) using balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. This retrospective study included 823 consecutive patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI in 2 institutions, Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital (Dallas, TX) and The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (Plano, TX), from January 2012 to February 2016. Efficacy was evaluated by postprocedural valve function as mean gradient, peak velocity, effective orifice area, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Safety end points included all-cause 30-day and 1-year mortality, immediate postprocedural mortality and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, procedural success, pacemaker implantation, and procedural complications. Of the 823 included patients, 735 had TAV and 77 had BAV. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Procedural success was high in both BAV and TAV (98.7% vs 99.1%, p = ns). There were no significant differences between groups in valve hemodynamics after TAVI, pacemaker implantation rate, or procedural complications. There were no differences regarding immediate postprocedural mortality (BAV vs TAV, 1.1% vs 0.8%, p = ns), nor 30-day cardiovascular mortality (3.4% vs 2.3%, p = ns). All-cause mortality at 30 days (3.4% vs 3.1%, p = ns) and 1-year (8.5% vs 10.5%) were similar. Patients with BAV showed similar procedural and clinical outcomes to patients with TAV. Therefore, TAVI appears to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with BAVs as well as those with TAVs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028694911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028694911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.053

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.053

M3 - Article

C2 - 28886853

AN - SCOPUS:85028694911

VL - 120

SP - 1601

EP - 1606

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 9

ER -