Procedural and clinical outcomes of type 0 versus type 1 bicuspid aortic valve stenosis treated with transcatheter valve replacement: insights from the BEAT international collaborative registry
Abstract Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) were generally excluded from randomized trials due to anatomic features that may challenge TAVR (valve morphology, annulus geometry and size and severe calcifications). Nevertheless real-world registries have shown that a consistent number of BAV has been treated with TAVR. Whether BAV phenotype may affect acute or long-term outcomes following TAVR still remains unclear. Purpose Evaluate the impact of BAV phenotype on procedural and clinical outcomes after TAVR with new generation valves. Methods Patients included in the BEAT (Balloon vs Self-Expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid Aortic valve sTenosis) registry were classified according to the BAV phenotype. Procedural and clinical outcomes of type 0 (2 cusps, 1 commissure, no raphe) vs type 1 (1 raphe) BAV are here reported. Primary endpoint was post-procedural device success, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium–2 (VARC-2) criteria. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications, rate of permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation and assessment of clinical outcomes at 30-day and 1-year follow-up. Results BAV 0 phenotype was present in 25 (7.1%) cases, and BAV 1 in 218 (61.8%). 3 (0.9%) patients with BAV 2 phenotype and 105 (29.8%) patients in whom BAV phenotype was undeterminable were excluded. Baseline characteristics of the two populations were well balanced. Mean STS score tended to be lower in type 0 vs type 1 BAV (3.35% ±1.8 vs 4.5% ± 3.0, p=0.062). Mean transvalvular gradient, aortic valve area (AVA), and left ventricular ejection fraction didn't differ between groups. According to CT findings moderate-severe aortic valve calcifications were less frequently present in type 0 vs type 1 (52% vs 71.1%, p=0.01). TAVR was performed under conscious sedation in most patients (89.7%), no differences were noted in terms of valve type, valve size, pre and postdilation between groups. There was no significant difference in any peri-procedural complication including pericardial tamponade, second valve implantation, valve embolization, annular rupture, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, conversion to open surgery, and need of PM between groups however VARC-2 success tended to be lower in type 0 BAV versus type 1 (72% vs 86.7%; p=0.07). A higher rate of mean transvalvular gradient>20 mmHg was observed in the type 0 vs type 1 groups (respectively 24% vs 6%, p=0.007), while no differences were reported in the rate of moderate-severe aortic regurgitation. At 30-day and 1-year follow-up we did not find differences in clinical outcomes. Conclusions Our study confirms the feasibility of TAVR in both type 0 and type 1 BAV, however despite a lower rate of moderate-severe calcifications, a trend toward a lower VARC device success and a higher rate of mean transvalvular gradient >20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs type 1 BAV. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
Poster Session 3The imaging examination and quality assessmentP626Value of mitral and tricuspid annular displacement to assess the interventricular systolic relationship in severe aortic valve stenosis : a Pilot studyP627Follow-up echocardiography in asymptomatic valve disease: assessing the potential economic impact of the European and American guidelines in a dedicated valve clinic, compared to standard care.P628The tricuspid valve: identification of optimal view for assessing for prolapseP629Right atrial volume by two-dimensional echocardiography in healthy subjectsP630Disturbance of inter and intra atrial conduction assessed by tissue doppler imaging in patients with medicaly controlled hypertension and prehypertension.P631Liver stiffness by shear wave elastography, new noninvasive and quantitative tool for acute variation estimation of central venous pressure in real-time?P632Weak atrial kick contribution is associated with a risk for heart failure decompensationP633Usefulness of wave intensity analysis in predicting the response to cardiac resynchronization therapyP634Early subclinical left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction in gestational hypertension and preeclampsiaP635Clinical comparison of three different echocardiographic methods for left ventricular ejection fraction and LV end diastolic volume measurementP636Assessment of right ventricular-arterial coupling parameters by 3D echocardiography in patients with pulmonary hypertension receiving specific vasodilator therapyP637Prediction of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implant: assessing usefulness of standard and strain echocardiographyP638Kinematic analysis of diastolic function using the novel freely available software Echo E-waves - feasibility and reproducibilityP639Evaluation of coronary flow velocity by Doppler echocardiography in the treatment of hypertension with the ARB: correlation to the histological cardiac fibrosisP640The clinical significance of limited apical ischaemia and the prognostic value of stress echocardiography - A contemporary study from a high volume centerP641Effects of intermediate stenosis of left anterior descending coronary artery on survival in patients with chronic total occlusion of right coronary arteryP642Left ventricular remodeling after a first myocardial infarction in patients with preserved ejection fraction at dischargeP643Left atrial size and acute coronary syndromes. Let is make simple.P644Influence of STEMI reperfusion strategy on systolic and diastolic functionP645Aortic valve resistance risk-stratifies low-gradient severe aortic stenosisP646Does permanent pacemaker implantation complicate the prognosis of patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation?P647Influence of metabolic syndrome and diabetes on progression of calcific aortic valve stenosis - The COFRASA - GENERAC StudyP648Low referral for aortic valve replacement accounts for worse long-term outcome in low versus high gradient severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fractionP649The impact of right ventricular function from aortic valve replacement: A randomised study comparing minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and conventional open heart surgery
