Balloon-Expandable vs Self-Expanding Valves for Transcatheter Treatment of Sievers Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) have different features that may impact the outcomes of patients with Sievers type 1 bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of BEVs and SEVs in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis.

METHODS

AD-HOC (Characteristics, Sizing, and Outcomes of Stenotic Raphe-Type Bicuspid Aortic Valves Treated With Transcatheter Device Implantation) is an observational registry enrolling patients with Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with current-generation BEVs and SEVs at 24 international centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint was midterm major adverse events, defined as a composite of all-cause death, neurologic events, or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Among 955 eligible patients, propensity score matching resulted in 301 pairs. At a median follow-up of 1.3 years, BEVs and SEVs had a similar risk of major adverse events (BEV vs SEV: HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.49-1.16; P = 0.200). Technical success was similar (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.63-3.04; P = 0.421). At 30 days, BEVs were associated with a lower risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002) and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05-0.48; P = 0.001) but a higher risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 3.03; 95% CI 1.02-8.95; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Current-generation BEVs and SEVs proved similar technical success and midterm clinical efficacy in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis. Compared to SEVs, BEVs were associated with less permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation but with more severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.