Three-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis

Summary

This single-centre Chinese cohort study evaluated three-year clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 246 consecutive patients, comparing 109 bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients with 137 tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) controls. BAV patients were younger and lower-risk than TAV patients at baseline, yet demonstrated comparable three-year survival rates (87.1% vs 79.5%, p=0.126), similar haemodynamic improvements, and equivalent left ventricular reverse remodelling, with a lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantation. The findings suggest that TAVI may offer a feasible treatment option for BAV stenosis with outcomes comparable to traditional TAV populations.

UK applicability

This study is based on a single Chinese centre's experience and may have limited direct applicability to UK clinical practice, where patient demographics, comorbidity profiles, and procedural techniques may differ. However, the three-year safety and efficacy data for TAVI in BAV patients could inform UK cardiology guidelines if comparable outcomes are confirmed in European or UK populations.

Key measures

Three-year all-cause mortality rates, Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores, permanent pacemaker implantation rates, clinical adverse events incidence, valve haemodynamics on echocardiography, left ventricular reverse remodelling

Outcomes reported

The study measured three-year survival rates, clinical adverse events, permanent pacemaker implantation rates, valve haemodynamics, and left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Topic tags