Search

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, leading to an increasing number of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Pivotal randomized trials conducted to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval excluded bicuspid anatomy.Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based prospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 552 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to November 2018.Exposures: TAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment.Results: Of 81 822 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (2726 bicuspid; 79 096 tricuspid), 2691 propensity-score matched pairs of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis were analyzed (median age, 74 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 66-81 years]; 39.1%, women; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 4.9% [4.0%] and 5.1% [4.2%], respectively). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at 30 days (2.6% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, [95% CI, 0.74-1.47]) and 1 year (10.5% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10]). The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis (2.5% vs 1.6%; HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.33]). The risk of procedural complications requiring open heart surgery was significantly higher in the bicuspid vs tricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]). There were no significant differences in valve hemodynamics. There were no significant differences in moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days (2.0% vs 2.4%; absolute RD, 0.3% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0.7%]) and 1 year (3.2% vs 2.5%; absolute RD, 0.7% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.7%]). At 1 year there was no significant difference in improvement in quality of life between the groups (difference in improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, -2.4 [95% CI, -5.1 to 0.3]; P = .08).Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality but had increased 30-day risk for stroke. Because of the potential for selection bias and the absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-world applicability of the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been debated because of careful patient selection and the contrasting results of the MITRA-FR (Multicentre Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair MitraClip Device in Patients with Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) RCT. The COAPT-PAS (COAPT Post-Approval Study) was initiated to assess the safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). COAPT-PAS is a prospective, single-arm, observational study of 5,000 consecutive patients with SMR treated with the MitraClip at 406 U.S. centers participating in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) registry from 2019 to 2020. The 1-year outcomes from the COAPT-PAS full cohort and the COAPT-like and MITRA-FR–like subgroups who met RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported. Patients in the COAPT-PAS had more comorbidities, more severe HF and functional limitations, and less guideline-directed medical therapy than those in the COAPT or MITRA-FR RCTs. Patients in the COAPT-PAS full cohort and the COAPT-like (n = 991) and MITRA-FR–like (n = 917) subgroups achieved a 97.7% MitraClip implant rate, a similar and durable reduction of mitral regurgitation to ≤2+ at 1 year (90.7%, 89.7%, and 86.6%, respectively), a large improvement in quality of life at 1 year (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire +29 COAPT-PAS, +27 COAPT-like, and +33 MITRA-FR–like), faster procedure times, similar or lower clinical event rates compared with the RCTs' MitraClip arms, and lower clinical event rates than the RCTs' guideline-directed medical therapy only arms. One-year heart failure hospitalizations was 18.9% in COAPT-PAS, 19.7% in COAPT-like compared with 24.9% in COAPT-RCT, and 28.7% in COAPT-PAS-MITRA-FR–like compared with 47.4% in MITRA-FR-RCT. This large, contemporary, real-world study reinforces the safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip System in patients with SMR, including those who met the COAPT or MITRA-FR RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria and patients excluded from the RCTs. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]