Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

Open access
Yoon, Sung-Han, Bleiziffer, Sabine, De Backer, Ole, Delgado, Victoria, Arai, Takahide, Ziegelmueller, Johannes, Barbanti, Marco, Sharma, Rahul, Perlman, Gidon Y., Khalique, Omar K., Holy, Erik W., Saraf, Smriti, Deuschl, Florian, Fujita, Buntaro, Ruile, Philipp, Neumann, Franz-Josef, Pache, Gregor, Takahashi, Masao, Kaneko, Hidehiro, Schmidt, Tobias, Ohno, Yohei, Schofer, Niklas, Kong, William K.F., Tay, Edgar, Sugiyama, Daisuke, Kawamori, Hiroyuki, Maeno, Yoshio, Abramowitz, Yigal, Chakravarty, Tarun, Nakamura, Mamoo, Kuwata, Shingo, Yong, Gerald, Kao, Hsien-Li, Lee, Michael, Kim, Hyo-Soo, Modine, Thomas, Wong, S. Chiu, Bedgoni, Francesco, Testa, Luca, Teiger, Emmanuel, Butter, Christian, Ensminger, Stephan M., Schaefer, Ulrich, Dvir, Danny, Blanke, Philipp, Leipsic, Jonathon, Nietlispach, Fabian, Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed, Chevalier, Bernard, Tamburino, Corrado, Hildick-Smith, David, Whisenant, Brian K., Park, Seung-Jung, Colombo, Antonio, Latib, Azeem, Kodali, Susheel K., Bax, Jeroen J., Søndergaard, Lars, Webb, John G., Lefèvre, Thierry, Leon, Martin B., Makkar, Raj·2017·Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry. METHODS: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. RESULTS: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 489

Metadata

Authors
Yoon, S.-H., Bleiziffer, S., De Backer, O., Delgado, V., Arai, T., Ziegelmueller, J., Barbanti, M., Sharma, R., Perlman, G. Y., Khalique, O. K., Holy, E. W., Saraf, S., Deuschl, F., Fujita, B., Ruile, P., Neumann, F.-J., Pache, G., Takahashi, M., Kaneko, H., Schmidt, T., Ohno, Y., Schofer, N., Kong, W. K. F., Tay, E., Sugiyama, D., Kawamori, H., Maeno, Y., Abramowitz, Y., Chakravarty, T., Nakamura, M., Kuwata, S., Yong, G., Kao, H.-L., Lee, M., Kim, H.-S., Modine, T., Wong, S. C., Bedgoni, F., Testa, L., Teiger, E., Butter, C., Ensminger, S. M., Schaefer, U., Dvir, D., Blanke, P., Leipsic, J., Nietlispach, F., Abdel-Wahab, M., Chevalier, B., Tamburino, C., Hildick-Smith, D., Whisenant, B. K., Park, S.-J., Colombo, A., Latib, A., Kodali, S. K., Bax, J. J., Søndergaard, L., Webb, J. G., Lefèvre, T., Leon, M. B., & Makkar, R.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
69
Issue
21
Pages
2579-2589
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
OpenAlex
W2595545849
Cited by
489
References
34
FWCI
38.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
The paper
Yoon, S.-H., Bleiziffer, S., De Backer, O., Delgado, V., Arai, T., Ziegelmueller, J., Barbanti, M., Sharma, R., Perlman, G. Y., Khalique, O. K., Holy, E. W., Saraf, S., Deuschl, F., Fujita, B., Ruile, P., Neumann, F.-J., Pache, G., Takahashi, M., Kaneko, H., . . . Makkar, R. (2017). Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.