AIM To compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis.
METHODS We collected medical records of 179 patients who received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Fuwai Hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 retrospectively. After screening and propensity-score matching, outcomes of 51 pairs of patients were compared.
RESULTS There were no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of device success (80.4% vs. 84.3%, no statistical significance), the incidence of 30-day major clinical endpoints (3.9% vs. 3.9%, no statistical significance) and the incidence of primary endpoint (9.67% vs. 6.74%, no statistical significance), while the incidence of the moderate of severe paravalvular leak was slightly higher in the bicuspid group (11.8% vs. 2.0%, no statistical significance).
CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in procedural and short-term outcomes between TAVR for tricuspid aortic valve stenosis and TAVR for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.