Observational studyOpen heart2025
Transcatheter bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus: an observational study.
Observational study in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) and small annuli.
designRetrospective analysis based on a prospective observational cohort.
settingSingle-centre registry of patients undergoing TAVR between 2016 and 2023.
participantsA total of 427 patients (193 bicuspid (BAV) and 234 tricuspid (TAV) aortic valve) with symptomatic severe AS and small annuli (median area 381.5 mm MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Baseline characteristics, technical success, procedural complications, haemodynamic performance and bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (BVD) were compared between groups. The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure.Cox regression was used to adjust for confounders.
resultsCompared with TAV patients, BAV recipients experienced higher technical failure rates (11.4% vs 6.0%, p=0.045) but lower permanent pacemaker implantation (4.7% vs 12%, p=0.008) at discharge. The 1-year MACCE rate was similar between groups (14.5% vs 9.8%, log-rank p=0.719), and Cox regression analyses adjusting for confounders revealed no significant difference (HR 1.408 (95% CI 0.622 to 3.191), p=0.412). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in valve haemodynamics, with comparable rates of BVD (11.4% vs 9.2%, p=0.502) and structural valve dysfunction. Multivariate analysis demonstrated equivalent long-term survivals (HR 0.950 (95% CI 0.526 to 1.714), p=0.864) between groups.
conclusionTAVR provides comparable clinical and haemodynamic outcomes for bicuspid and tricuspid AS with a small aortic annulus, despite greater procedural complexity in BAV cases. These findings support cautious expansion of TAVR to select BAV patients when performed with meticulous procedural planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.