Successful transapical aortic valve implantation in a congenital bicuspid aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:630-632. [PMID: 20667364 DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.12.080]

Aortic annulus and root characteristics in severe aortic stenosis due to bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valves: implications for transcatheter aortic valve therapies

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis due to BAV are excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to concern for asymmetric expansion and valve dysfunction. We sought to characterize the aortic root and annulus in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valves (TAV).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified patients with severe AS who underwent multi-detector computed tomographic (MDCT) imaging prior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 200) for BAV and TAVR (n = 200) for TAV from 2010 to 2013. The presence of a BAV was confirmed on surgical and pathological review. Annulus measurements of the basal ring (short- and long-axis, area-derived diameter), coronary ostia height, sinus area (SA), sino-tubular junction area (STJ), calcification and eccentricity index (EI, 1-short axis/long axis) were made. Patients with TAV were older (78.8 years vs. 57.8 years, P = 0.04) than those with BAV. The aortic annulus area (5.21 ± 2.1 cm(2) vs. 4.63 ± 2.0 cm(2) , P = 0.0001), sinus of Valsalva diameter (3.7 ± 0.9 cm vs. 3.1 ± 0.1 cm, P = 0.001) and ascending aorta diameter (3.5 ± 0.7 cm vs. 2.97 ± 0.6 cm, P = 0.001) were significantly larger with BAV. Bicuspid aortic annuli were significantly less elliptical (EI, 1.24 ± 0.1 vs. 1.29 ± 0.1, P = 0.006) and more circular (39% vs. 4%, P < 0.001) compared to the TAV annulus. There was more eccentric annular calcification in BAV vs. TAV (68% vs. 32%, P < 0.001). The mean distance from the aortic annulus to the left main coronary ostium was less than the right coronary ostium. Less than 10% of the BAV annuli would not fit a currently available valved stents.

CONCLUSION

Bicuspid aortic valves have a larger annulus size, sinus of Valsalva and ascending aorta dimensions. In addition, the BAV aortic annuli appear circular and most will fit currently available commercial valved stents.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients who have bicuspid aortic valve

OBJECTIVE

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is generally considered to be a contraindication to sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of this technique in patients with BAV.

METHODS

From June 2011 to January 2014, a total of 25 patients who underwent sutureless AVR had documented BAV. Thirteen patients (52%) had median sternotomy, and 12 patients (48%) a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

The study population included 17 (68%) men with a median age of 77.8 ± 5.4 years. The mean EuroSCORE II was 3.4% ± 2.6%. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 8 patients (32%), 2 AVRs (8%), 1 mitral valve repair (4%), 1 septal myomectomy (4%), and 1 atrial septal defect closure (4%). The mean transaortic valve gradient decreased from 49.4 ± 15.7, to 14.5 ± 5.4 mm Hg postoperatively. The mean aortic valve area increased from 0.78 ± 0.18, to 1.75 ± 0.43 cm(2) postoperatively. Five patients (20%) suffered from atrioventricular block that required permanent pacemaker implantation. Two patients (8%) suffered a stroke. No major paravalvular leakage occurred, and no postoperative valve migration. In-hospital mortality occurred in 1 patient (4%). The mean intensive care unit length of stay was 3 ± 2 days postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a sutureless aortic valve can be deployed in patients with BAV without increasing the risk of paravalvular leakage. BAV should not be considered a contraindication to sutureless AVR.

Elective valve-in-valve implantation for migration of a Corevalve in a patient with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAVS) is controversial, as its unfavorable anatomy may lead to device dislocation or malfunctioning. If device failure occurs, the bailout intervention can be more complex and technically challenging. We here report a unique case of late migration of a CoreValve (Medtronic, MN) implanted in a patient with BAVS, who was successfully treated with elective valve-in-valve implantation using the first valve as a firm scaffold after waiting for it to adhere at the migrated position. This new strategy may represent a useful salvage option for some patients with prosthesis migration.

Comparison of the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (from the German TAVI Registry)

Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) are considered a relative contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). One of the main reasons is the presumed risk for residual aortic regurgitation (AR). However, case reports and small case series have suggested that TAVI can be successfully performed with acceptable clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with BAV. Within the large German TAVI Registry, we sought to evaluate TAVI in older high-risk patients with BAV. From January 2009 to June 2010, a total of 1,424 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI were prospectively enrolled into the German TAVI Registry. For the present analysis, patients with valve-in-valve procedures were excluded and those with BAV (n = 38, 3%) were compared with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV; n = 1357, 97%). Patient characteristics did not markedly differ and procedural success was very high in both groups. There was a higher rate of relevant AR (≥II) after TAVI among patients with BAV (25 vs 15%, p = 0.05), whereas pacemakers were more often implanted in patients with TAV (17% vs 35%, p = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality rate was similar in both cohorts (11% vs 11%). In a Cox proportional regression analysis, BAV was not associated with higher 1-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.41). In selected patients with BAV, TAVI can be performed with a satisfactory clinical result. Although the risk for relevant AR seems to be greater among patients with BAV, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were not elevated compared with patients with TAV.

Transapical aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves: must be an absolute contraindication?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is a new therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis with unacceptable surgical risk for conventional aortic valve surgery. A Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV) is the most common congenital cardiac disorder (1% of the population) and currently is considered exclusion criteria for TAVI, because it predicts an increased risk of adverse aortic events as incomplete sealing, severe paravalvular regurgitation, or dislocation due to more frequent elliptic shape and asymmetric calcifications in BAV annulus.

Only few cases have been published in recent literature, so in this case report we illustrate our experience and management of TAVI in a BAV, with excellent outcomes and no late complications at 1 year follow-up.

We believe that currently the presence of a BAV might not be considered an absolute contraindication for TAVI, because although there is no sufficient data for assess the safety or efficacy of TAVI in BAV, this case report shows that it could be performed safely in selected patients with unacceptable surgical risk after an extensive preoperative evaluation, avoiding this procedure in patients with bad prognostic factors as huge and heavy calcifications, asymmetric valves, elliptic annulus or small distance from leaflets to coronary ostia. Each case must be individualized, being alert at follow-up because the risk of late complications.

Feasibility and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with stenotic bicuspid aortic valves

Little is known about transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, which usually represents a contraindication. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and the results of TAVI in this patient subset. Of 316 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI from January 2009 to January 2012, 15 (5%) had documented bicuspid aortic valves. They were treated using a transarterial approach, using the Medtronic CoreValve system. Patients were aged 80 ± 10 years, in New York Heart Association functional classes III and IV. The mean aortic valve area was 0.8 ± 0.3 cm(2), and the mean gradient was 60 ± 19 mm Hg. The mean calcium score, calculated using multislice computed tomography, was 4,553 ± 1,872 arbitrary units. The procedure was successful in all but 1 patient. Major adverse events, according to Valvular Academic Research Consortium definitions, were encountered in 1 patient (death). The mean postimplantation prosthetic gradient was 11 ± 4 mm Hg, and ≤1+ periprosthetic leaks were observed in all but 2 patients. The mean prosthetic ellipticity index was 0.7 ± 0.2 at the level of the native annulus and 0.8 ± 0.2 at the level of the prosthetic leaflets. After a mean follow-up period of 8 ± 7 months, 1 patient had died from aortic dissection; there were no additional adverse events. All but 2 hospital survivors were in New York Heart Association class I or II. In conclusion, the present series suggests that transarterial Medtronic CoreValve implantation is feasible in selected patients with bicuspid aortic valve and may lead to short-term hemodynamic and clinical improvement.

Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: patient risk profile and anatomical selection criteria

Patient selection plays a crucial role in the success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). It requires meticulous attention to the smallest of details and needs to be performed in a systematic manner for every patient. In essence, the patient must be assessed from access to implantation site. Becoming over "complacent" and "routine" may lead to failure and impact patient safety. TAVI is indicated for high or prohibitive surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Some patients, however, are too high risk even for TAVI. In addition to patient risk evaluation, anatomical selection criteria need to be considered. Multimodality imaging, using a combination of angiography, echocardiography and multislice computed tomography, is necessary to determine the anatomical suitability for the procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Current status and future perspectives

Although surgical aortic valve replacement is the standard therapy for severe aortic stenosis (AS), about one third of patients are considered inoperable due to unacceptable surgical risk. Under medical treatment alone these patients have a very poor prognosis with a mortality rate of 50% at 2 years. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been used in these patients, and has shown robust results in the only randomized clinical trial of severe AS treatment performed so far. In this review, we will focus on the two commercially available systems: Edwards SAPIEN valve and CoreValve Revalving system. Both systems have demonstrated success rates of over 90% with 30-d mortality rates below 10% in the most recent transfemoral TAVI studies. Moreover, long-term studies have shown that the valves have good haemodynamic performance. Some studies are currently exploring the non-inferiority of TAVI procedures vs conventional surgery in high-risk patients, and long-term clinical results of the percutaneous valves. In this article we review the current status of TAVI including selection of patients, a comparison of available prostheses, results and complications of the procedure, clinical outcomes, and future perspectives.