Long-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis in immunosuppression-treated patients: a propensity-matched multicentre retrospective registry-based analysis.

Introduction: Data regarding patients with a previous medical record of immunosuppression treatment who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited and extremely inconclusive. Available studies are mostly short term observations; thus there is a lack of evidence on efficacy and safety of TAVI in this specific group of patients. Aim: To compare the in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients with or without a medical history of immunosuppressive treatment undergoing TAVI for aortic valve stenosis (AS). Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective registry-based analysis including patients undergoing TAVI for AS at 5 centres between January 2009 and August 2017. The primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints comprised major vascular complications, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stroke and new pacemaker implantation. Results: Of 1451 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, two propensity-matched groups including 25 patients with a history of immunosuppression and 75 patients without it were analysed. No differences between groups in all-cause mortality were found in a median follow-up time of 2.7 years following TAVI (p = 0.465; HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.30-1.77). The rate of major vascular complications (4.0% vs. 5.3%) was similar in the two groups (p = 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences in the composite endpoint combining life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke and new pacemaker implantation (40.0% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.218). Conclusions: Patients who had undergone TAVI for AS had similar long-term mortality regardless of whether they had a previous medical record of immunosuppression. Procedural complication rates were comparable between the groups.

Long-Term Mortality After TAVI for Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis: A Propensity-Matched Multicentre Cohort Study.

Objectives: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal trials of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared the in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients undergoing TAVI for bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis. Methods: We performed a retrospective registry-based analysis on patients who underwent TAVI for BAV and TAV at five different centers between January 2009 and August 2017. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, procedural complications, and valve performance. Results: Of 1,451 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, two propensity-matched cohorts consisting of 130 patients with BAV and 390 patients with TAV were analyzed. All-cause mortality was comparable in both groups up to 10 years following TAVI (HR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77-1.51). Device success and in-hospital mortality were comparable between the groups (96 vs. 95%, p = 0.554 and 2.3 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.863, respectively). Incidence of procedural complications was similar in both groups, with a trend toward a higher rate of stroke in patients with BAV (5 vs. 2%, p = 0.078). Incidence of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (PVL) at discharge was comparable in both groups (2 vs. 2%, p = 0.846). Among patients with BAV, all-cause mortality was similar in self-expanding and balloon-expandable prostheses (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52-1.99) and lower in new-generation devices compared to old-generation valves (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.62). Conclusion: Patients who had undergone TAVI for BAV had comparable mortality to patients with TAV up to 10 years after the procedure. The device success, in-hospital mortality, procedural complications, and PVL rate were comparable between the groups. The high rate of neurological complications (5%) in patients with BAV warrants further investigation.

Ten-year experience with transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: lessons learned and future perspectives.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has traditionally been perceived as a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to its specific anatomical characteristics including extensive calcifications, high leaflet coaptation and frequently encountered aortic root dilation, which may result in worse procedural outcomes and higher risk of complications. Hence, BAV patients were not included in previous clinical trials. In the recent years, improved pre-procedural imaging and technological advances have gradually enabled expansion of TAVI to patients with complex anatomy, including those with BAV. Moreover, indications for TAVI are expanding to a younger group of patients with fewer comorbidities, and BAV is more prevalent in this population. Contemporary multicenter registry-based studies indicate that patients undergoing TAVI for BAV have similar outcomes as those with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. In this article, we provide a thorough overview of the available clinical data regarding the outcomes of TAVI in BAV, from the perspective of an experienced TAVI center with over 150 TAVIs in this group of patients, performed in our institution since the year 2009. We present anatomical and clinical classifications of BAV, differences in outcomes in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid valves, as well as important topics regarding choice of an adequate valve and valve size.