Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure after TAVI in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis during one-year follow-up according to VARC-3.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has become more frequent in the last years. This may pose challenges for long-time valve durability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) with the newest-generation devices in BAV stenosis up to one-year follow-up (FU). METHODS: The primary endpoint was defined as the prevalence of BVD during the first procedural year according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 criteria. Secondary endpoints were defined as failure in device success and clinical endpoints according to VARC-3. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included. Of these, 34 subjects (31.8%) met the criteria for BVD during a mean FU of 263 ± 180 days, of which 20.2% were already documented after thirty days. Device success after one year was lower in the + BVD cohort (57.6% vs. 98.7%, p < 0.0001*). The rates of structural valve deterioration were 6.5%, non-structural valve deterioration (NSVD) 17.8%, subclinical leaflet thickening 10.3%, and endocarditis 0.9%. NSVD was foremost triggered by patient prosthesis mismatch in balloon-expandable valves. Hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 1 and 2 was confirmed in 16.8% of + BVD patients, while stage 1 and 3 bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 1.9%. There was no impact of BVD on mortality. CONCLUSION: There is critical evidence of early BVD after TAVI in BAV during one-year FU in one-third of patients, also lowering device success. The most frequently observed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was NSVD due to patient prosthesis mismatch following TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes in Patients Deemed Inoperable Undergoing Transapical and Transfemoral TAVR with an STS-PROM below Four Percent.

Transapical (TA) TAVR is known to be associated with increased mortality and vascular complications compared with transfemoral (TF) TAVR in high-risk and inoperable patients. However, safe alternative access methods remain crucial. We aimed to (1) evaluate the 30-day and 1-year outcomes comparing TA and TF TAVR in patients with an STS-PROM of <4% deemed inoperable and (2) determine dependent and independent predictors for all-cause one-year mortality. Data were collected from a single-center registry consisting of 340 eligible patients. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed (n = 50 TA, n = 50 TF). Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Predictors for all-cause one-year mortality were evaluated. Thirty-day mortality (TF vs. TA: 0.0% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.153) was comparable in both cohorts. One-year all-cause mortality was twice as high in TA patients (TF vs. TA: 10.0% vs. 20.0%, p logrank = 0.165, HR 2.10). Cerebrovascular events and major bleeding during one-year follow-up were similar. The multivariate analysis identified hemoglobin <12 g/dL at admission and dual antiplatelet therapy as strong predictors for one-year mortality. Although femoral access is the primary access with favorable 30-day and 1-year results, transapical access was successful for patients unsuitable for TF TAVR, showing acceptable short- and mid-term results in inoperable patients with low-risk profiles.

Current and Future Aspects of Multimodal Imaging, Diagnostic, and Treatment Strategies in Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Associated Aortopathies.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most frequent congenital cardiac abnormality leading to premature aortic valve apparatus dysfunction and is often associated with aortopathy. Therefore, current guidelines recommend a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), even if many patients are deemed inoperable owing to their comorbidities and require alternatives such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, BAV variations remain challenging for procedural success. Therefore, the latest development in different imaging modalities (echocardiography, multislice-computertomographie, cardiovascular magnetic resonance) allows in-depth analysis for preprocedural risk stratification, follow up, and patient selection. Furthermore, we shed light on the latest developments in pre- and periprocedural fusion imaging as well as on current and future treatment options.