CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Mitral/Tricuspid Valvular Disease

Abstract

Recommended Article

Surgery Does Not Improve Survival in Patients With Isolated Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation Pathophysiology, diagnosis and new therapeutic approaches for ischemic mitral regurgitation Regurgitant Volume/Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume Ratio: Prognostic Value in Patients With Secondary Mitral Regurgitation A Score to Assess Mortality After Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair Impact of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair on Preprocedural and Postprocedural Hospitalization Rates Potential Candidates for Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Intervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Predictors and Prognosis Thrombotic Risk and Antithrombotic Strategies After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Prevalence and clinical implications of valvular calcification on coronary computed tomography angiography

Original Research2020 Oct 22;S0167-5273(20)34003-1.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Procedural and clinical outcomes of type 0 versus type 1 bicuspid aortic valve stenosis undergoing trans-catheter valve replacement with new generation devices: Insight from the BEAT international collaborative registry

Y Shima, K Miura, T Shimada et al. Keywords: severe aortic stenosis;bicuspid aortic valve; TAVR; BAV morphology

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND Although bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is not considered a "sweet spot" to trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a certain number of BAV underwent TAVR. Whether BAV phenotype affects outcomes following TAVR remains debated. We aimed at evaluating the impact of BAV phenotype on procedural and clinical outcomes after TAVR using new generation trans-catheter heart valves (THVs).


METHODS - patients included in the BEAT registry were classified according to the BAV phenotype revealed at multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in type 0 (no raphe) vs. type 1 (1 raphe). Primary end-point was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success. Secondary end-points included procedural complications, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, clinical outcomes at 30-day and 1-year.


RESULTS - Type 0 BAV was present in 25(7.1%) cases, type 1 in 218(61.8%). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Moderate-severe aortic valve calcifications at MSCT were less frequently present in type 0 vs. type 1 (52%vs.71.1%,p = 0.05). No differences were reported for THV type, size, pre and post-dilation between groups. VARC-2 success tended to be lower in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV (72%vs86.7%;p = 0.07). Higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 group (24%vs6%,p = 0.007). No differences were reported in the rate of post-TAVR moderate-severe aortic regurgitation and clinical outcomes between groups.


CONCLUSIONS - Our study confirms TAVR feasibility in both BAV types, however a trend toward a lower VARC-2 device success and a higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV.