Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am J Cardiol. 2014 Apr 15;113(8):1390-3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.01.412. Epub 2014 Jan 31.

Comparison of results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid or nonbicuspid valves.

Author information

1
Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Interventional Cardiology Unit, EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy; Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
2
Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Interventional Cardiology Unit, EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy.
3
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
4
Department of Cardiology, Clinical Institute S. Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.
5
Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
6
Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Interventional Cardiology Unit, EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: info@emocolumbus.it.

Abstract

Data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis and how this compares to that for tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis are limited. Twenty-one consecutive patients with BAV were treated with the Edwards or CoreValve bioprosthesis from November 2007 to December 2012 at San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Clinical Institute S. Ambrogio, Milan, Italy. Results were compared with a cohort of patients with TAV (n=447) treated with the same bioprostheses over the same period. Procedural 1- and 12-month outcomes were examined as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Patients with BAV were younger (76.7±7.1 vs 79.8±7.4 years, p=0.06) and with a larger aortic annulus (25.0±1.8 vs 23.6±2.1 mm, p=0.01). Device success (85.7% vs 94.4%, p=0.10) was lower in patients with BAV. Although the 30-day composite safety end point (23.8% vs 21.0%, p=0.76) was similar between the 2 groups, mortality rate at 30 days was higher (14.2% vs 3.6%, p=0.02) in the BAV group. Cardiovascular mortality at 1 year did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (10.5% vs 7.4%, p=0.62). In conclusion, transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high surgical risk patients with severe BAV stenosis appears to be feasible with mid-term cardiovascular mortality similar to that for patients with TAV. Early survival and device success, however, were lower for patients with BAV demonstrating that further studies are required to identify which subset of patients with BAV is best suited for transcatheter treatment.

PMID:
24581922
DOI:
10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.01.412
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center