Comparison of the results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve.

INTRODUCTION: Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are constantly expanding, including younger patients. Bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) often occur in this group. In order to achieve optimal treatment results in younger patients, it is necessary to develop an effective method for selecting the size of implanted valves. AIM: To compare the results of TAVI with use of a self-expanding prosthesis in patients with a BAV and a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) with valve selection based on annular sizing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The diagnosis of BAV and TAV and measurements (annular sizing) were based on multi-slice computed tomography scans. Eighty-three patients received a self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R prosthesis. In group I (BAV) there were 21 (25.3%) patients and in group II (TAV) there were 62 (74.7%) patients. RESULTS: The groups did not differ in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Device success was achieved in 16 (76.2%) and 55 (88.7%) (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. Composite endpoints: early safety occurred in 5 (23.8%) and 11 (17.7%) patients (p =NS) in group I and II respectively; clinical efficacy occurred in 10 (47.6%) and 28 (45.2%) patients (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. 30-day mortality was 4.8% vs 9.7%, 1-year mortality was 28.6% vs 17.7% (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and BAV is as effective as in patients with TAV using self-expanding prostheses if the valve selection is based on annular sizing.

Comparison of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis. AIM: To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, 2,137 patients were hospitalized for STEMI. Of these, 123 patients received the BVS (163 scaffolds; 151 lesions), whereas in 141 patients the EES (203 stents; 176 lesions) was implanted. The median follow-up was 931 ±514 days. The primary endpoint at 12 months occurred in 9.7% in the BVS group and in 8.5% in the EES group (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-7.56; p = 0.076). At 24 months the incidence of the primary endpoint was 15.2% in the BVS group and 14.9% in the EES group (HR = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.85-7.07; p = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.