Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is most extensively documented for the treatment of aortic stenosis in patients with tricuspid valves. To compare the 30-day and 1-year outcomes after TAVI in patients with tricuspid, bicuspid and bioprosthetic valves who participated in the COMPARE-TAVI 1 trial. Methods. In COMPARE-TAVI 1, all-comer patients treated with transfemoral TAVI were randomized to treatment with one of two balloon-expandable valves. In this study, these patients were divided into three groups based on valve anatomy. 30-day and 1-year outcomes among patients with bicuspid and bioprosthetic valves (surgical or transcatheter) were compared with outcomes among patients with tricuspid valves. Results. Patients with tricuspid valves (N = 892, median 82 years) were slightly older than patients with bicuspid (N = 98, median 78 years) and bioprosthetic (N = 40, median 80 years) valves. Procedural outcomes were similar. There were no differences in death or bleeding at 30 days, nor in death, myocardial infarction, percutaneous revascularization, or endocarditis at 1 year. Stroke was more frequent among patients with bicuspid valves at 30 days (n = 7), while new pacemaker was less frequent among patients with bioprosthetic valves at 30 days (n = 0). The need for reoperation was more frequent among patients with bicuspid valves (n = 3). Conclusions. In this observational study performed within the COMPARE-TAVI 1 cohort, patients with tricuspid, bicuspid or bioprosthetic valves had similar outcomes. No patients with bioprosthetic valves had a new pacemaker within 30 days after TAVI. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04443023.