Balloon Versus Self-Expandable Valve for the Treatment of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: Insights From the BEAT International Collaborative Registrys

Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jul;13(7):e008714. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008714. Epub 2020 Jul 10.

Abstract

Background: Large data comparing the performance of new-generation self-expandable versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in bicuspid aortic stenosis are lacking. We aim to compare the safety and performance of balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Methods: The BEAT (balloon versus self-expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using new-generation Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves in bicuspid aortic valve.

Results: A total of 353 patients (n=242 [68.6%] treated with Sapien 3 and n=111 [68.6%] treated with Evolut R (n=70)/PRO [n=41]) were included. Mean age was 77.8±8.3 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.4±3.3%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO (85.6% versus 87.2%; P=0.68). In the Sapien 3 group, 4 patients experienced annular rupture whereas this complication did not occur in the Evolut R/PRO group. After propensity score matching, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between both groups (Sapien 3=85.7% versus Evolut R/Pro=84.4%; P=0.821). Both in the overall and in the matched population, no differences in the rate of permanent pacemaker implant were observed. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of overall death and cardiovascular death were similar between the 2 groups. In the unmatched population, the 1-year echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated similar rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (Evolut R/PRO 10.5% versus Sapien 3 4.2%, P=0.077); however, after propensity matching, the rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak became significantly higher among patients treated with self-expandable valves (9.3% versus 0%; P=0.043).

Conclusions: Our study confirms the feasibility of both Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was observed in the Evolut R/PRO group at 1-year follow-up in the matched cohort, although patients treated with balloon-expandable valve had a higher rate of annular rupture.

Keywords: aortic valve; bicuspid valve; pacemaker; propensity score; surgeons; transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Observational Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aortic Valve / abnormalities
  • Aortic Valve / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Valve / physiopathology
  • Aortic Valve / surgery*
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / physiopathology
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / surgery*
  • Balloon Valvuloplasty* / adverse effects
  • Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease / diagnostic imaging
  • Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease / physiopathology
  • Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease / surgery*
  • Europe
  • Feasibility Studies
  • Female
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis*
  • Hemodynamics
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Recovery of Function
  • Registries
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Time Factors
  • Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement / adverse effects
  • Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement / instrumentation*
  • Treatment Outcome