| Forrest et al. 2020[6] |
150 patients |
Low-risk bicuspid |
|
| Waksman et al. 2020[17] |
61 bicuspid TAVR |
Low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with self-expanding or balloon expandable valves |
At 30 days, there was zero mortality and no disabling strokes Permanent pacemaker implantation 13.1% and moderate paravalvular leak 1.6% at 30 days Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (10% at 30 days) was not associated with clinical events
|
| Halim et al. 2020[18] |
5,412 bicuspid TAVR procedures |
Low-risk TAVR |
When current-generation devices were used in bicuspid TAVR, device success increased (93.5% versus 96.3%; p=0.001) and the incidence of 2+ aortic insufficiency declined (14.0% versus 2.7%; p<0.001) in comparison with older-generation devices The adjusted 1-year mortality was lower (HR 0.88; 95% CI [0.78–0.99]) in bicuspid TAVR compared with tricuspid TAVR, but no difference in the 1-year stroke risk was observed (HR 1.14; 95% CI [0.94–1.39])
|
| Forrest et al. 2020[19] |
932 bicuspid TAVR, 26,154 tricuspid TAVR |
Low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with self-expanding valves from TVT registry |
After propensity matching, all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.6% versus 1.7%; p=0.18) and 1 year (10.4% versus 12.1%; p=0.63), as well the rate of stroke at 30 days (3.4% versus 2.7%; p=0.41) and 1 year (3.9% versus 4.4%; p=0.93), were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid TAVR
|
