Search

Introduction: Data regarding patients with a previous medical record of immunosuppression treatment who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited and extremely inconclusive. Available studies are mostly short term observations; thus there is a lack of evidence on efficacy and safety of TAVI in this specific group of patients. Aim: To compare the in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients with or without a medical history of immunosuppressive treatment undergoing TAVI for aortic valve stenosis (AS). Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective registry-based analysis including patients undergoing TAVI for AS at 5 centres between January 2009 and August 2017. The primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints comprised major vascular complications, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stroke and new pacemaker implantation. Results: Of 1451 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, two propensity-matched groups including 25 patients with a history of immunosuppression and 75 patients without it were analysed. No differences between groups in all-cause mortality were found in a median follow-up time of 2.7 years following TAVI (p = 0.465; HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.30-1.77). The rate of major vascular complications (4.0% vs. 5.3%) was similar in the two groups (p = 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences in the composite endpoint combining life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke and new pacemaker implantation (40.0% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.218). Conclusions: Patients who had undergone TAVI for AS had similar long-term mortality regardless of whether they had a previous medical record of immunosuppression. Procedural complication rates were comparable between the groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has traditionally been perceived as a contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to its specific anatomical characteristics including extensive calcifications, high leaflet coaptation and frequently encountered aortic root dilation, which may result in worse procedural outcomes and higher risk of complications. Hence, BAV patients were not included in previous clinical trials. In the recent years, improved pre-procedural imaging and technological advances have gradually enabled expansion of TAVI to patients with complex anatomy, including those with BAV. Moreover, indications for TAVI are expanding to a younger group of patients with fewer comorbidities, and BAV is more prevalent in this population. Contemporary multicenter registry-based studies indicate that patients undergoing TAVI for BAV have similar outcomes as those with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. In this article, we provide a thorough overview of the available clinical data regarding the outcomes of TAVI in BAV, from the perspective of an experienced TAVI center with over 150 TAVIs in this group of patients, performed in our institution since the year 2009. We present anatomical and clinical classifications of BAV, differences in outcomes in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid valves, as well as important topics regarding choice of an adequate valve and valve size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest.