Skip to content
Open access

Long-Term Outcomes of Contemporary Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve: A Propensity-Matched Comparison to Tricuspid.

Sep 2026 · JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions · Vol 19 17, pp. 2383-2396 · 1 citation · 27 references
Medicine

Abstract

Background

Limited data are available comparing clinical outcomes between bicuspid and tricuspid patients following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Objectives

This study sought to investigate 5-year clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis following TAVR with contemporary balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) in patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid leaflet morphology.

Methods

From August 2015 to December 2023, a total of 3,393 patients with native aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR with contemporary BEVs were divided into bicuspid and tricuspid groups. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed to adjust for baseline differences. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up.

Results

Among 515 matched pairs, over a median follow-up duration of 1,511 days (Q1-Q3: 937-1825 days), there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (13.2% vs 13.7%; P = 0.384). Heart failure rehospitalization (8.5% vs 6.8%; P = 0.622), stroke (2.4% vs 2.6%; P = 0.618), or aortic valve reintervention (0.7% vs 1.6%; P = 0.706) at 5 years was not significantly different between the groups. Ascending aortic growth rates (0.37 mm/y vs 0.31 mm/y; P = 0.578), in-hospital death (0.8% vs 1.0%; P = 0.738), valve hemodynamics through 5 years, including mean transvalvular gradients (12.0 mm Hg vs 11.5 mm Hg; P = 0.863), effective orifice area (1.35 cm2 vs 1.50 cm2, P = 0.084), and moderate or greater paravalvular leak (3.9% vs 5.6%; P = 0.578) did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions

In propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVR with contemporary BEVs, long-term clinical outcomes, valve performance, and ascending aortic growth rate showed no statistically significant differences between bicuspid and tricuspid groups.

Read PDF

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.