Abstract 13931: Comparison of Inpatient Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: An Insight From National Inpatient Sample

Abhushan PoudyalDae Yong ParkSmriti KhanalPrajwal ShresthaBharosa SharmaSadichhya KarkiAviral VijCook County Health,Chicago,IL
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.146.suppl_1.13931
IF: 37.8
2022-11-01
Circulation
Abstract:Circulation, Volume 146, Issue Suppl_1, Page A13931-A13931, November 8, 2022. Background:TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), including those with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). There is a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of TAVR in the latter group since they were excluded from the landmark trials which established TAVR as a favorable alternative to surgery. Prior studies have shown higher rates of permanent pacemaker placement (PPM) and paravalvular leak (PL) but comparable rates of embolic stroke (ES) and mortality in BAV patients who underwent TAVR when compared to those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). We examined the impact of aortic valve anatomy on inpatient mortality and complication rates using current data from the largest inpatient database in the United States.Methods:We queried the 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample database to identify all patients over 18 years of age who underwent TAVR for AS. Patients were stratified to BAV and TAV groups using ICD-10 codes. Greedy nearest neighbor propensity score matching was performed based on demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital characteristics, insurance status, and median income. Outcomes of interest included rates of mortality, PPM, PL, ES, and length of hospital stay (LOS).Results:Of 192,100 AS patients who underwent TAVR, 0.5% had BAV. After propensity score matching, 995 BAV and 995 TAV patients were included in the final analysis. The overall mortality rate was 1.5% with no significant difference between the two groups [OR 1.00 (0.20-5.060), p=1.00]. Rates of PPM were 10.1% in BAV and 8.5% in TAV patients with no significant difference [OR 1.20 (0.61-2.37), p=0.61]. Rates of PL were 1% in BAV and 0.5% in TAV patients with no significant difference [OR 2.01 (0.18-22.65), p=0.57]. Rate of ES was 1.5% in BAV patients; however, direct comparison to its propensity-matched TAV cohort was not feasible since the latter group had no events in this analysis. There was no significant difference in the LOS between the two groups.Conclusion:Insight from this large database suggests that in the current era, TAVR has similar short-term outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Further studies with long-term follow-up on valve function and the need for reintervention will be needed, especially since this involves younger patients.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
What problem does this paper attempt to address?