Similar articles

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with a severe stenotic bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) in a Chinese population. While several groups have reported the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TAVI for patients with a BAV, worldwide experience of the technique is still limited, especially in China. Methods: From March 2013 to November 2014, high surgical risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who had undergone TAVI at our institution were selected for inclusion in our study. Results were compared between a BAV group and a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) group. Results: Forty patients were included in this study, 15 (37.5%) of whom were identified as having a BAV. In the BAV group, the aortic valve area was smaller ((0.47±0.13) vs. (0.59±0.14) cm²), the ascending aortic diameter was larger ((40.4±4.4) vs. (36.4±4.3) mm), and the concomitant aortic regurgitation was lower. No significant differences were found between the groups in the other baseline characteristics. No differences were observed either in the choice of access or valve size. The procedural success achieved in this study was 100%. There were no differences between groups in device success (86.7% vs. 88.0%), 30-d mortality (6.7% vs. 8.0%), or 30-d combined end point (13.3% vs. 12.0%). The incidences of new pacemaker implantation, paravalvular regurgitation and other complications, recovery of left ventricle ejection fraction and heart function were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Patients with a severely stenotic BAV can be treated with TAVI, and their condition after treatment should be similar to that of people with a TAV.

经导管主动脉瓣置入术在中国人群二叶式主动脉瓣重度狭窄中的安全性和有效性评估

[1]Adams, D.H., Popma, J.J., Reardon, M.J., 2014. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med., 371(10):967-968.

[2]Bauer, T., Linke, A., Sievert, H., et al., 2014. Comparison of the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (from the German TAVI Registry). Am. J. Cardiol., 113(3):518-521.

[3]Costopoulos, C., Latib, A., Maisano, F., et al., 2014. Comparison of results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid or nonbicuspid valves. Am. J. Cardiol., 113(8):1390-1393.

[4]Erbel, R., Aboyans, V., Boileau, C., et al., 2014. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J., 35(41):2873-2926.

[5]Hayashida, K., Bouvier, E., Lefèvre, T., et al., 2013. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv., 6(3):284-291.

[6]Himbert, D., Pontnau, F., Messika-Zeitoun, D., et al., 2012. Feasibility and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with stenotic bicuspid aortic valves. Am. J. Cardiol., 110(6):877-883.

[7]Kochman, J., Huczek, Z., Scisło, P., et al., 2014. Comparison of one- and 12-month outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (results from a multicenter registry). Am. J. Cardiol., 114(5):757-762.

[8]Leon, M.B., Smith, C.R., Mack, M., et al., 2010. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N. Engl. J. Med., 363(17):1597-1607.

[9]Leon, M.B., Piazza, N., Nikolsky, E., et al., 2011. Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 57(3):253-269.

[10]Nistri, S., Basso, C., Marzari, C., et al., 2005. Frequency of bicuspid aortic valve in young male conscripts by echocardiogram. Am. J. Cardiol., 96(5):718-721.

[11]Roberts, W.C., 1970. The congenitally bicuspid aortic valve: a study of 85 autopsy cases. Am. J. Cardiol., 26(1):72-83.

[12]Roberts, W.C., Ko, J.M., 2005. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation, 111(7):920-925.

[13]Sievers, H.H., Schmidtke, C., 2007. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 133(5):1226-1233.

[14]Smith, C.R., Leon, M.B., Mack, M.J., et al., 2011. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med., 364(23):2187-2198.

[15]Tutar, E., Ekici, F., Atalay, S., et al., 2005. The prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve in newborns by echocardiographic screening. Am. Heart J., 150(3):513-515.

[16]Wijesinghe, N., Ye, J., Rodés-Cabau, J., et al., 2010. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv., 3(11):1122-1125.

[17]Zegdi, R., Ciobotaru, V., Noghin, M., et al., 2008. Is it reasonable to treat all calcified stenotic aortic valves with a valved stent? Results from a human anatomic study in adults. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 51(5):579-584.

[18]Zegdi, R., Lecuyer, L., Achouh, P., et al., 2010. Increased radial force improves stent deployment in tricuspid but not in bicuspid stenotic native aortic valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg., 89(3):768-772.