Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for elderly patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Developing Country

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis in all surgical risk groups. Reports of clinical outcomes post-TAVR in developing countries are scarce. We aimed to address the clinical outcomes and safety profile of TAVR in a developing country.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective study on patients undergoing TAVR at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) from January 2016 to April 2023. We included a total of 399 patients. Our primary endpoint was to assess the rate of TAVR in-hospital and 30-day mortality, neurologic events, and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients, stratified by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk of mortality score.

RESULTS

Survival rates were 98.7% (394) at discharge vs. 97.5% (389) at 30 days post-procedure. The technical success rate was 95% (379) at the end of the procedure. Device success and early safety rates were 93.5% (373) and 83% (331), respectively at 30 days post-procedure. The all-cause mortality rate increased from 1.3% (5) at discharge to 2.5% (10) at 30-day intervals. The rate of ischemic stroke was 1.3% (five) at discharge and increased to 2% (eight) at 30 days post-procedure. PPI was needed in 5.8% (23) of patients at discharge with an increase to 7% (28) at one-month interval. Overall, the rates of TAVR outcomes among the three risk groups were comparable including neurologic events, valve-related complications, bleeding problems, vascular and access-related complications, and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

This study at AUBMC highlights the successful implementation of the TAVR program in a developing country, showcasing its efficacy and safety within 30 days post-operation, despite challenges such as financial constraints and limited access to specialized training. Larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are needed to accurately represent clinical outcomes in developing countries.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Indications

In the past two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the management of aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care regardless of surgical risk levels. Advances in transcatheter valve design across newer generations, improved imaging, greater operator expertise, and technical enhancements have collectively contributed to increased safety and a decline in procedural complications over this timeframe. The application of TAVR has progressively expanded to include younger patients with lower risks, who have longer life expectancies. This article offers an up-to-date review of the latest innovations in transcatheter delivery systems, devices, and its possible future indications.

Patient characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a failed surgical prosthesis vs in a native valve: A Danish nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a feasible and increasingly used treatment option for failed surgical aortic prosthesis, but data from clinical practice are limited. We aimed to examine patient characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI in a surgival valve (valve-in-valve TAVI) compared with patients undergoing TAVI in a native valve.

METHODS

Using nationwide registries, we identified all Danish citizens, who underwent TAVI from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 6,070 patients undergoing TAVI were identified; 247 (4%) patients had a history of SAVR (The valve-in-valve cohort). The median age of the study population was 81 (25th-75th percentile 77-85) and 55% were men. Patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI were younger but had a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities compared with patients with native-valve-TAVI. Within 30 days post procedure, 11 (0.2%) and 748 (13.8%) patients who underwent valve-in-valve-TAVI and native-valve-TAVI, respectively, had a pacemaker implantation. The cumulative 30-day risk of death among patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.0%-5.0%) and 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3%-3.1%) in patients with native-valve-TAVI, respectively. Correspondingly, the cumulative 5-year risk of death was 42.5% (95% CI: 34.2%-50.6%) and 44.8% (95% CI: 43.2%-46.4%), respectively. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, valve-in-valve-TAVI was not associated with a significantly different risk of death at 30 days (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.19) and 5 years (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.00) post-TAVI compared with native-valve-TAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI in a failed surgical aortic prosthesis as compared to TAVI in a native valve, was not associated with significantly different short- and long-term mortality, suggesting that valve-in-valve-TAVI is a safe procedure.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Perceval Bioprosthesis: Clinical and Technical Aspects in 32 Cases

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2-10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9-35.1%).

RESULTS

Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1-50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Addressing the Subsequent Risk of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a commonly used therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis, even in those patients at low surgical risk. The indications for TAVI have broadened as the therapy has proven to be safe and effective. Most challenges associated with TAVI after its initial introduction have been impressively reduced; however, the possible need for post-TAVI permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) secondary to conduction disturbances continues to be on the radar. Conduction abnormalities post-TAVI are always of concern given that the aortic valve lies in close proximity to critical components of the cardiac conduction system. This review will present a summary of noteworthy pre-and post-procedural conduction blocks, the best use of telemetry and ambulatory device monitoring to avoid unnecessary PPI or to recognize the need for late PPI due to delayed high-grade conduction blocks, predictors to identify those patients at greatest risk of requiring PPI, important CT measurements and considerations to optimize TAVI planning, and the utility of the MInimizing Depth According to the membranous Septum (MIDAS) technique and the cusp-overlap technique. It is stressed that careful membranous septal (MS) length measurement by MDCT during pre-TAVI planning is necessary to establish the optimal implantation depth before the procedure to reduce the risk of compression of the MS and consequent damage to the cardiac conduction system.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure

Background

In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).

Methods

A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.

Results

In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).

Conclusion

VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

Gender Differences in Age-Stratified Early Outcomes in Patients With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Few researchers have discussed the differences in gender between the age groups of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We searched the National Readmissions Database from 2012 to 2019 to identify adults who underwent TAVI. We studied hospital outcomes and short- to medium-term outcomes by age stratification (18 to 59, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80 to 90 years) after TAVI and categorized by gender. We included 147,481 patients who underwent TAVI, and 54,802 pairs were matched using propensity score matching separately for each age group. Compared with men, women in all age groups had a similar rate of hospital death. Except the 18- to 59-year-old groups, female patients were less likely to undergo permanent pacemaker implantation and transfusion. Records of readmission at 30 days and 6 months were used as the follow-up outcome according to the presence or absence of readmission. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were a composite of cardiovascular readmission, all-cause mortality during readmission, and stroke readmission. At the 30-day follow-up visit, there was no difference in the all-cause readmission and MACE between women and men in any group. At the 6-month follow-up visit, women in the 70- to 79-year-old and 80- to 90-year-old groups had a high risk of all-cause readmission. In conclusion, we reported that female patients have similar in-hospital death rates to male patients who underwent TAVI. During the 30-day follow-up visit, the all-cause readmission and MACE were not different in all age groups between men and women. At 6 months, women in the 70- to 79-year-old and 80- to 90-year-old groups had a higher risk of all-cause readmission.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Endovascular vs Surgical Revascularization for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia

IMPORTANCE

The Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischemia of the Leg randomized controlled trial showed comparable outcomes between endovascular revascularization (ER) and surgical revascularization (SR) for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). However, several observational studies showed mixed results. Most of these studies were conducted before advanced endovascular technologies were available.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ER and SR treatment strategies for 6-month outcomes among patients with CLI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify 66 277 patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2022, to February 8, 2022. A propensity score with 1:1 matching was applied. Patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR were identified, and those with missing information on the length of stay and/or younger than 18 years were excluded.

EXPOSURES

Endovascular or surgical revascularization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a major amputation at 6 months. Significant secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 6-month mortality and an in-hospital safety composite of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complication. Subgroup analysis was conducted for major amputation in high-volume centers.

RESULTS

A total of 66 277 patients were identified between 2016 and 2018 who underwent ER or SR for CLI. The Nationwide Readmissions Database does not provide racial and ethnic categories. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 69.3 (12) years, and 62.5% of patients were male. A total of 54 546 patients (82.3%) underwent ER and 11 731 (17.7%) underwent SR. After propensity score matching, 11 106 matched pairs were found. Endovascular revascularization was associated with an 18% higher risk of major amputation compared with SR (997 of 10 090 [9.9%] vs 869 of 10 318 [8.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.29; P = .001). However, no difference was observed in major amputation risk when both procedures were performed in high-volume centers. Endovascular revascularization and SR had similar mortality rates (517 of 11 106 [4.7%] vs 490 of 11 106 [4.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .39). However, the ER group had a 17% lower risk of in-hospital safety outcomes compared with the SR group (2584 of 11 106 [23.3%] vs 2979 of 11 106 [26.8%]; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this study suggest that ER was safer, without any difference in mortality, but ER was associated with an increased risk of major amputation compared with SR. However, the risk of major amputation was similar when both procedures were performed at high-volume centers.

Transcatether Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Focus on the Specific Procedural Challenges

Actually transcatheter aortic valve implantation within failed surgically bioprosthetic valves (VIV-TAVI) is an established procedure in patients at high risk for repeat surgical aortic valve intervention. Although less invasive than surgical reintervention, VIV-TAVI procedure offers potential challenges, such as higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Thus, optimal procedural planning plays an important role to minimize the risk of procedure complications. In this review, we describe the key points of a VIV-TAVI procedure to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of procedure complications.

Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.

Early outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), as pivotal randomised trials excluded patients with BAV pathology due to anatomic complexity.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to compare early outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in patients with BAV stenosis.

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) between 2016 and 2018 to identify adults who underwent TAVI or SAVR for BAV stenosis. The study's primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day and six-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We matched both cohorts using propensity score matching, and applied logistic and Cox-proportional hazard regression to compute the odds ratio (OR), the hazard ratio (HR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Out of 17,068 patients with BAV stenosis, 1,629 (9.5%) patients underwent TAVI and 15,439 (90.5%) underwent SAVR. After propensity score matching (PSM), we found 1,393 matched pairs. Of the matched pairs, 848 had complete six-month follow-ups. In the PSM cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.8%, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.93; p=0.035), and a similar rate of MACE at 30 days (1% vs 1.5%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.27-1.58; p=0.343) and at six months (4.2% vs 4.9%, HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.69; p=0.674), compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the propensity score-matched cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality and a similar risk of 30-day and six-month MACE, supporting the feasibility of TAVI in BAV patients without a need for concurrent aortic root repair.