This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Mechanically expanding TAVR system effective in bicuspid valves

Add topic to email alerts

Receive an email when new articles are posted on

Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on .

Subscribe

Added to email alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

Back to Healio

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Back to Healio

A mechanically expanding transcatheter aortic valve performed similarly in patients with bicuspid valves compared with those with tricuspid valves, according to 2-year data from the RESPOND study presented at EuroPCR.

The prospective, open-label RESPOND study included 996 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the mechanically expanding valve (Lotus, Boston Scientific) in real-world settings.

For the present analysis, Daniel J. Blackman, MD, consultant cardiologist at Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, United Kingdom, and colleagues compared outcomes up to 2 years between the 3.1% of the cohort with bicuspid aortic valves (mean age, 76 years; 65% men) and the remainder of the cohort with tricuspid aortic valves.

Procedural success occurred in 100% of the bicuspid group and 99.8% of the tricuspid group, and in the bicuspid group there were no cases of migration, embolization or deployment of a second valve, according to the researchers.

Aortic valve gradient did not significantly differ between the groups at discharge (bicuspid, 12.38 mm Hg; tricuspid, 10.76 mm Hg; P = .06) or at 1 year (bicuspid, 13.33 mm Hg; tricuspid, 10.67 mm Hg; P = .17).

Mean effective orifice area was also similar between the groups at discharge (bicuspid, 1.64 cm²; tricuspid, 1.81 cm²; P = .05) and at 1 year (bicuspid, 1.62 cm²; tricuspid, 1.79 cm²; P = .1).

No patients in the bicuspid group had moderate or higher paravalvular leak, whereas 13.8% of them had mild paravalvular leak at discharge and 15% had mild paravalvular leak at 1 year. The rates of paravalvular leak did not differ between the groups at discharge (P = .1) or at 1 year (P = .13), the researchers wrote in an abstract.

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups at 30 days (bicuspid, 3.2%; tricuspid, 2.2%; P = .51), 1 year (bicuspid, 9.7%; tricuspid, 11.7%; P = .74) or 2 years (bicuspid, 16.4%; tricuspid, 19.7%; P = .65), according to Blackman and colleagues.

CV mortality, stroke, hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or worsening congestive HF and pacemaker implantation also did not differ between the groups at 2 years.

A mechanically expanding transcatheter aortic valve performed similarly in patients with bicuspid valves compared with those with tricuspid valves, according to 2-year data from the RESPOND study presented at EuroPCR.

Source: Adobe Stock

“Data from the RESPOND registry suggest that [transcatheter aortic valve replacement] with the Lotus Valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy is associated with a high degree of procedural success, improved hemodynamics and good clinical outcomes through 2 years,” Blackman and colleagues wrote in the abstract. “Given the limited number of bicuspid patients enrolled in RESPOND, these results should be confirmed in a larger study.” – by Erik Swain

Reference:

Blackman DJ, et al. Bicuspid aortic stenosis: From imaging to TAVI. Presented at: EuroPCR; May 21-24, 2019; Paris.

Disclosure: Cardiology Today’s Intervention could not confirm relevant financial disclosures at the time of publication.