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

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement achieves similar predicted effective orifice area to surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR) for patients with trileaflet aortic stenosis (AS) have found similar or larger effective orifice area (EOA) for TAVR prostheses. To our knowledge, no studies have compared EOA in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared prosthetic valvular sizing and predicted EOA for patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR at our institution between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. We excluded patients undergoing procedures for indications other than AS and those without a pre-procedural gated Chest CT. Comparisons included demographics, comorbidities, annular size, prosthetic valve size, predicted EOA and prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) for TAVR (N = 78) and SAVR (N = 74) cohorts.

RESULTS

TAVR patients had smaller pre-procedural annular area (501.7 mm2 vs. 571.8 mm2, p < 0.05) and annular perimeter (80.6 mm vs. 86.5 mm, p < 0.05), but larger mean implanted prosthetic valve size (26.4 mm vs 24.2 mm, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR patients. No differences were observed in predicted EOA, predicted EOA indexed to patient body surface area (EOAi), or predicted PPM grade between TAVR and SAVR groups, including in cohorts sorted by pre-procedural annular size.

CONCLUSIONS

For bicuspid AS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR. These data support the use of TAVR in selected patients with bicuspid AS and can inform heart team discussions.

Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: From Pathophysiology to Treatment

The Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV) is the most common congenital anomaly in adults, with a global incidence of 1.3%. Despite being well documented, BAV presents significant clinical challenges due to its phenotypic heterogeneity, diverse clinical manifestations, and variable outcomes. Pathophysiologically, BAV differs from tricuspid valves in calcification patterns and hemodynamic effects, leading to increased shear stress and aortic root dilatation, while it is influenced by genetic and hemodynamic factors. This is why therapeutically, BAV presents challenges for both surgical and transcatheter interventions, with surgical approaches being traditionally preferred, especially when aortopathy is present. However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a viable option, with studies showing comparable outcomes to surgery in selected patients, while advancements in TAVI and a better understanding of BAV's genetic and pathophysiological nuances are expanding treatment options. The choice between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves also presents considerations, particularly regarding long-term durability and the need for anticoagulation. Future research should focus on long-term registries and genetic studies to refine therapeutic strategies and improve patient outcomes. This review aims to evaluate current approaches in the surgical and interventional management of BAV, focusing on its anatomy, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, and therapeutic strategies.

Comparison of Two Generations of Self-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves in Nine Surgical Valves: An In Vitro Study

(1) Background: This study aimed to analyse the hydrodynamic performance of two generations of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) as a valve-in-valve (ViV) in different surgical aortic valve (SAV) models under standardised conditions. The nitinol-based Evolut R valve is frequently used in ViV procedures. It is unclear whether its successor, the Evolut PRO, is superior in ViV procedures, particularly considering the previously implanted SAV model. (2) Methods: EvolutTM R 26 mm and EvolutTM PRO 26 mm prostheses were implanted in nine 21 mm labelled size SAV models (Hancock® II, Mosaic® UltraTM, EpicTM Supra, TrifectaTM GT, Perimount®, Perimount® Magna Ease, AvalusTM, IntuityTM, Freestyle®) to analyse their hydrodynamic performance under defined circulatory conditions in a pulse duplicator. (3) Results: Both THVs presented with the lowest effective orifice area (EOA) and highest mean pressure gradient (MPG) inside Hancock® II, whereas THVs in Intuity showed the highest EOA and lowest MPG. Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed significant hydrodynamic differences depending on the SAV. Both THVs performed similarly in porcine valves. Although the Evolut R performed better than Evolut PRO in stented bovine SAVs, the Evolut PRO was superior inside the Intuity. Further, the SAV model design markedly influenced the TAV's geometric orifice area and pin-wheeling index. (4) Conclusions: These findings show that the Evolut R and Evolut PRO perform differently depending on the previously implanted SAV model. THV selection for treatment of a specific SAV model should consider these results.

Management of bicuspid aortic valve disease in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation era

In an era of rapidly expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the management of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is far less well established than in those with trileaflet anatomy. Results of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement are excellent in suitable patients, and surgery also allows treatment of concomitant pathology of the aortic root and ascending aorta that is frequently encountered in this cohort. Conversely, TAVI provides an excellent alternative in older patients who may be unsuitable for surgery, although outcomes in BAV disease have only been reported in relatively small non-randomised series. Here, we discuss the pertinent literature on this topic and outline contemporary interventional treatment options in this challenging setting.

Comparison of downsizing strategy (HANGZHOU Solution) and standard annulus sizing strategy in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There has not been a consensus on the prothesis sizing strategy in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Modifications to standard annular sizing strategies might be required due to the distinct anatomical characteristics. We have devised a downsizing strategy for TAVR using a self-expanding valve specifically for patients with type 0 bicuspid AS. The primary aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of downsizing strategy with the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy in TAVR for patients with type 0 bicuspid AS.

TRIAL DESIGN

It is a prospective, multi-center, superiority, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the Down Sizing and Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy in patients with type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eligible participants will include patients with severe type 0 bicuspid AS, as defined by criteria such as mean gradient across aortic valve ≥40 mmHg, peak aortic jet velocity ≥4.0 m/s, aortic valve area (AVA) ≤1.0 cm², or AVA index ≤0.6 cm2/m2. These patients will be randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to either the Down Sizing Strategy group or the Standard Sizing Strategy group. In the Down Sizing Strategy group, a valve one size smaller will be implanted if the "waist sign" manifests along with less than mild regurgitation during balloon pre-dilatation. The primary end point of the study is a composite of VARC-3 defined device success, absence of both permanent pacemaker implantation due to high-degree atrioventricular block and new-onset complete left bundle branch block.

CONCLUSION

This study will compare the safety and efficacy of Down Sizing Strategy with the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy and provide valuable insights into the optimal approach for sizing in TAVR patients with type 0 bicuspid AS. We hypothesize that the Down Sizing Strategy will demonstrate superiority when compared to the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy. (Down Sizing Strategy (HANGZHOU Solution) vs Standard Sizing Strategy TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis (Type 0) (TAILOR-TAVR), NCT05511792).

2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography position paper for diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, part I: aortic valve disease

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases. This position paper focuses on the clinical management of valvular heart diseases with reference to the guidelines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee tried to reflect the recently published results on the topic of valvular heart diseases and Korean data by a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In part I of this article, we will review and discuss the current position of aortic valve disease in Korea.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Paravalvular Regurgitation After TAVR in Sievers Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valves

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is technically challenging and is burdened by an increased risk of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of PVR after TAVR in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in 24 international centers were enrolled. PVR was graded as none/trace, mild, moderate, and severe according to echocardiographic criteria. The endpoint of major adverse events (MAEs), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, was assessed at the last available follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 946 patients were enrolled. PVR occurred in 423 patients (44.7%)-mild, moderate, and severe in 387 (40.9%), 32 (3.4%), and 4 (0.4%) patients, respectively. Independent predictors of moderate or severe PVR were a larger virtual raphe ring perimeter (adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), severe annular or left ventricular outflow tract calcification (adjusted OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 1.45-18.77), a self-expanding valve (adjusted OR: 9.01; 95% CI: 2.09-38.86), and intentional supra-annular THV positioning (adjusted OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 1.04-10.54). At a median follow-up of 1.3 years (Q1-Q3: 0.5-2.4 years), moderate or severe PVR was associated with an increased risk of MAEs (adjusted HR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.24-5.09).

CONCLUSIONS

After TAVR with current-generation THVs in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis, moderate or severe PVR occurred in about 4% of cases and was associated with an increased risk of MAEs during follow-up.

The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

There are limited data comparing the outcomes of aortic valve replacement surgery between patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology.

METHODS

From January 2000 to June 2022, 1122 patients with TAV (n = 562) or BAV (n = 560) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the same type of bovine pericardial stented bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching identified 350 pairs by matching for age, sex, operative status, chronic lung disease, prior stroke, diabetes, ejection fraction, renal failure on dialysis, coronary artery disease, prior cardiac surgery, and concomitant procedures. The primary end points were long-term survival and reoperation.

RESULTS

Perioperative outcomes, including reoperation for bleeding, atrial fibrillation, heart block requiring pacemaker, stroke, need for dialysis, and operative mortality, were similar between the matched groups. Survival at 10 years was 67% (95% CI, 59%-74%) in the BAV group and 54% (95% CI, 46%-61%) in the TAV group (P = .001). BAV valve was a significant protective factor for late mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.81; P < .001). Risk factors for late mortality included age, chronic lung disease, low ejection fraction, and renal failure on dialysis. Cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention at 10 years was similar between the groups at 10% in the BAV group and 4.9% in the TAV group (P = .55).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BAV likely could not be considered the same as patients with TAV when deciding on the approach of aortic valve intervention.

Five-Year Outcomes After Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement With a Novel Tissue Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of surgical aortic valve replacement with RESILIA tissue (Edwards Lifesciences) through 5 years in patients with native bicuspid aortic valves. Outcomes were compared with those for patients with tricuspid aortic valves.

METHODS

Of 689 patients from the COMMENCE (ProspeCtive, nOn-randoMized, MulticENter) trial who received the study valve, 645 had documented native valve morphology and core laboratory-evaluable echocardiograms from any postoperative visit, which were used to model hemodynamic outcomes over 5 years. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate longitudinal changes in mean gradient and effective orifice area.

RESULTS

Patients with native bicuspid aortic valves (n = 214) were more than a decade younger than those with tricuspid aortic valves (n = 458; 59.8 ± 12.4 years vs 70.2 ± 9.5 years; P < .001). The bicuspid aortic valve cohort exhibited no structural valve deterioration over 5 years, and rates of paravalvular leak and transvalvular regurgitation were low (0.7% and 2.9%, respectively [all mild] at 5 years). These outcomes mirrored those in patients with native tricuspid aortic valves. The model-estimated postoperative mean gradient and effective orifice area, as well as the rate of change of these outcomes, adjusted for age, body surface area, and bioprosthesis size, did not differ between the 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with bicuspid aortic valves, RESILIA tissue valves demonstrated excellent outcomes to 5 years, including no structural valve deterioration and very low rates of paravalvular and transvalvular regurgitation. These results are encouraging for RESILIA tissue durability in young patients.

Surgical vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature directly comparing the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR in patients with BAV stenosis. Medline, PubMed, and Scopus were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2023, 1862 studies were screened, and 6 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. We included 6550 patients in the final analyses: 3,292 and 3,258 in the SAVR and TAVR groups, respectively. Both groups have similar rates of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.11; 95% CI 0.59-2.10; p = 0.75) and stroke (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.85-1.86; p = 0.26. Patients who underwent SAVR experienced lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.35-0.83; p = 0.005) and paravalvular leak (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.26-0.86; p = 0.02). On the other hand, patients who underwent TAVR displayed lower rates of acute kidney injury (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.15-2.84; p = 0.010), major bleeding (OR 3.76; 95% CI 2.18-6.49; p < 0.00001), and pulmonary complications (OR 7.68; 95% CI 1.21-48.84; p = 0.03). Despite the early mortality data suggesting that TAVR may be a reasonable strategy for patients with bicuspid AS with low to intermediate surgical risk, the increased risk of PPI and PVL is concerning. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial reporting long-term outcomes with pre-defined subgroup analyses based on BAV morphology is paramount. In the interim, caution should be exercised in the widespread adoption of TAVR in lower surgical-risk patients.

Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Ascending aorta (AA) dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) is related both to genetic and haemodynamic factors. The aim of this study is to compare late progression of AA dilatation in bicuspid AV patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Data of 189 consecutive patients who underwent AV replacement for severe bicuspid AV stenosis were prospectively collected. Patients who underwent SAVR were compared to patients who underwent TAVI. Indication to the procedure was validated by the institutional Heart Team. Aortic diameters were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiogram. Differences between preoperative and long-term follow-up AA diameters were compared in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and December 2021, 143 (76%) patients underwent SAVR and 46 (24%) patients underwent TAVI. At 4.6 (standard deviation 1.7) years follow-up, patients in the TAVI group showed significantly lower survival (P = 0.00013) and event-free survival (P < 0.0001). AA diameter progression was lower in surgical compared to transcatheter patients, 0.95 (0.60, 1.30) vs 1.65 (0.67, 2.63) mm, P = 0.02. AA diameter progression indexed for body surface area and height was lower in the surgical group: 0.72 (0.38, 1.05) vs 1.05 (0.39, 1.71) mm/m2, P = 0.02, and 0.59 (0.36, 0.81) vs 1.11 (0.44, 1.78) mm/m, P = 0.001, respectively. At multivariable linear regression analysis transcatheter procedure, baseline aortic diameter and paravalvular leak were significantly associated with increased postoperative AA dilatation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicuspid AV patients who underwent SAVR, showed significantly less long-term AA diameter progression than patients who underwent transcatheter procedure.

Pretranscatheter and Posttranscatheter Valve Planning with Computed Tomography

The range of potential transcatheter solutions to valve disease is increasing, bringing treatment options to those in whom surgery confers prohibitively high risk. As the range of devices and their indications grow, so too will the demand for procedural planning. Computed tomography will continue to enable this growth through the provision of accurate device sizing and procedural risk assessment.

Assess the Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Valve with Mixed Disease versus Predominant Aortic Stenosis

Purpose

In mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), the results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are conflicting. There is limited data on the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and MAVD. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes after TAVR in BAV patients with MAVD and predominant aortic stenosis (PAS).

Patients and Methods

Patients with BAV who underwent TAVR between January 2016 and April 2023 were included. The primary outcome was device success. The secondary endpoints were periprocedural mortality and other complications as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3). Propensity score matching was used to minimize potential confounding.

Results

A total of 262 patients were included in this study, 83 of whom had MAVD. The median age was 72 years, and 55.7% were male. The baseline comorbidity risk files were comparable between the two groups. Patients with MAVD had more mitral regurgitation, tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension, larger annular and left ventricular outflow tract dimensions, and more severe calcification than PAS. In the unmatched population, MAVD patients had similar device success rate (69.9% vs 79.9%, P=0.075) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs 3.4%, P=1) compared to PAS. Propensity score matching resulted in 66 patient pairs. Device success rate were still comparable in the matched population. Other clinical outcomes, including stroke, bleeding (type 2-4), major vascular complications, acute kidney injury (stage 2-4) and permanent pacemaker implantation, were comparable between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not show MAVD to be an independent negative predictor of device success. At one year, survival was similar between patients with MAVD and those with PAS.

Conclusion

For the bicuspid valve, patients with MAVD had a more challenging anatomy. MAVD patients associated with comparable 30-day clinical outcomes after TAVR compared to PAS patients in patients with BAV.

Three-year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves

INTRODUCTION

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is a complex anatomical scenario for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Favorable short-term clinical outcomes have been reported with TAVI in this setting, but long-term data are scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively included, in a single-center registry, patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI before 2020. We compared patients treated with self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular mortality, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate, mean gradient and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 150 consecutive patients (SEV = 83, BEV = 67) were included. No significant differences were reported between SEV and BEV groups for the primary composite endpoint (SEV 35.9% vs. BEV 32%, p = 0.66), neither for clinical secondary endpoints (all-cause mortality SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 28%, p = 0.988; cardiovascular mortality SEV 14.1% vs. BEV 20%, p = 0.399; stroke SEV 12.5% vs. BEV 6%, p = 0.342; need for AV reintervention SEV 0% vs. BEV 0%; PPI SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 24%, p = 0.620). A lower mean gradient persisted up to 3 years in the SEV group (SEV 8.8 ± 3.8 mmHg vs. BEV 10.7 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.063), while no significant difference was found in the rate of ≥ moderate PVL (SEV 3/30 vs. BEV 0/25, p = 0.242).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center registry, we observed favorable 3-year clinical outcomes in nonselected BAV patients treated with different generation devices, without significant differences between patients receiving SEV or BEV.

Single-Center Experience with the Balloon-Expandable Myval Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in Patients with Bicuspid Anatomy: Procedural and 30-Day Follow-Up

Aims: To report our single-center data regarding the initial 52 consecutive patients with a bicuspid aortic valve who underwent a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure using the new balloon-expandable MYVAL system. The focus is on reporting procedural details and outcomes over the 30-day postoperative period. Methods: From December 2019 to July 2023, 52 consecutive patients underwent a TAVI procedure with bicuspid anatomy. All patients had moderate to-high surgical risk or were unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement based on the Heart Team's decision. Outcomes were analyzed according to the VARC-2 criteria. The results of bicuspid patients were compared to patients with tricuspid anatomy in the overall study group, and further analysis involved a comparison between 52 pairs after propensity score matching. The device performance was evaluated using transthoracic echocardiography. Data collection was allowed by the Local Ethical Committee. Results: The mean age was 71 ± 7.1 years, and 65.4% were male. The mean Euroscore II and STS score were 3.3 ± 3.2 and 5.2 ± 3.3, respectively. Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were well balanced even in the unmatched comparison. Procedures were significantly longer in the bicuspid group and resulted in a significantly higher ARI index. All relevant anatomic dimensions based on the CT scans were significantly higher in bicuspid anatomy, including a higher implantation angulation, a higher rate of horizontal aorta and a higher proportion of patients with aortopathy. In the unmatched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.394), device success 100% vs. 99.1% (p = 0.487), TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.041), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.537), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 2.3% (p = 0.530), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 30.4% (p = 0.429), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0.5% (p = 0.624). In the propensity-matched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 0%, device success 100% vs. 100%, TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.315), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.315), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 0% (p = 0.475), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 24% (p = 0.274), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0%. There was no annular rupture nor need for second valve or severe aortic regurgitation in both the unmatched and matched comparison. The peak and mean aortic gradients did not differ at discharge and at 30-day follow-up between the two groups regardless of whether the comparison was unmatched or matched. There were no paravalvular leakages (moderate or above) in the bicuspid patients. Intermediate and extra sizes of the Myval THV system used a significantly higher proportion in bicuspid anatomy with a significantly higher oversize percentage in tricuspid anatomy. Conclusions: The TAVI procedure using the Myval THV system in patients with significant aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve anatomy is safe and effective. Hemodynamic parameters do not differ between tricuspid and bicuspid patients. However, the permanent pacemaker implantation rate is higher than expected; its relevance on long-term survival is controversial.

Early safety and mid-term clinical outcomes of technology transfer of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis in Vietnam: a single-center experience of 90 patients

Background

This study investigated the early safety and mid-term outcomes of stepwise implementation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Vietnamese patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at a single center, following the process of technical transfer.

Methods

From 2017 to 2022, 90 patients with symptomatic severe AS underwent TAVI at a tertiary hospital in Vietnam. The first 30 cases received support for technology transfer from international proctors. One-year outcomes were evaluated using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria.

Findings

Forty patients (45.5%) had bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). The Medtronic Evolut R/Pro self-expanding valve system was used in 98.9% of all cases, with a 29-mm valve being the most common. Device success was achieved in 95.6% of cases, whereas one procedural death occurred. At one year, four deaths (5.3%) occurred and all were in the BAV group. Other complications included stroke (2.8%), hospital readmission due to the valve or worsening heart failure (2.8%), permanent pacemaker implantation (9.9%), and moderate paravalvular leak (3.0%). The left ventricular ejection fraction and mean transvalvular gradient significantly improved after TAVI. There were no significant differences in procedural success and mortality when the proctor support period and the subsequent solo operator period were compared.

Interpretation

TAVI procedure is safe for treating severe AS in Vietnamese patients, despite the high prevalence of BAV. The procedural complication rate was low, with promising outcomes at one year. These results also highlight the effectiveness of the TAVI technical transfer model in Vietnam.

Funding

No funding was provided for this study.

Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: Classifications, Treatments, and Emerging Transcatheter Paradigms

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common congenital valvular malformation, which may lead to early aortic valve disease and bicuspid-associated aortopathy. A novel BAV classification system was recently proposed to coincide with transcatheter aortic valve replacement being increasingly considered in younger patients with symptomatic BAV, with good clinical results, yet without randomized trial evidence. Procedural technique, along with clinical outcomes, have considerably improved in BAV patients compared with tricuspid aortic stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The present review summarizes the novel BAV classification systems and examines contemporary surgical and transcatheter approaches.

Impact of Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve

Limited data are available about the impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation on long-term survival in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with BAV with AS who underwent periprocedural PPM implantation after TAVR with a self-expandable prosthesis. Data from patients with BAV and severe AS who underwent TAVR between April 2009 and January 2022 and followed in the framework of the One Hospital ClinicalService-CoreValve Project were collected. Patients were categorized in 2 groups according to PPM implantation after TAVR ("PPM" group) or not ("no PPM" group). The coprimary end points were all-cause death and a composite of cardiac mortality, rehospitalization because of cardiac causes, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Overall, 106 patients were considered (74 in the "no PPM" group and 32 in the "PPM" group). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of follow-up and baseline characteristics. Patients in the PPM group were more likely to show baseline conduction abnormalities (p = 0.023). Patients in the PPM group were more often treated with older generation prosthesis than those in the no PPM group (28.1% vs 5.4%, respectively, p = 0.013). At 2 years of follow-up, all-cause death in the no PPM and PPM groups occurred in 20.0% and 10.0% of patients, respectively (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 1.67). Similarly, no difference was evident for the composite end point between the 2 groups (no PPM vs PPM: 8 [14.6%] vs 6 [19.3%], hazard ratio 1.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.81). In conclusion, patients with severe AS and BAV treated with TAVR complicated by PPM implantation are not exposed to an increased risk of major adverse events at 2 years of follow-up.

Causes of Malfunction of Bioprostheses Inserted Percutaneously in the Aortic Valve Position in Patients Whose Native Aortic Valve Was Congenitally Bicuspid and Stenotic

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought in recent years relief of cardiac-induced symptoms to a large number of patients with aortic stenosis. Whether it is better to use TAVI for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis superimposed on a congenitally bicuspid valve has been debated in contrast to its proved usefulness in aortic valve stenosis involving a tricuspid aortic valve. From January 2020 to March 2023, surgical aortic valve replacement of TAVI valve and native aortic valve was done in 6 patients. The clinical findings of the patients and morphologic findings from the surgical specimens submitted to the cardiac pathology department were subsequently examined. All the 6 native aortic valves had bicuspid configuration. The TAVI valve in each patient was excised from 9 to 88 months (mean 36 months) after it had been implanted because of paravalvular leak in 4, severe stenosis of the prosthetic valve in 1, and bioprosthetic cuspal degeneration in 1. Prosthetic valve endocarditis was clinically suspected in 2 patients, but the specimen culture was negative. Before surgical aortic valve replacement, 3 patients experienced stroke after TAVI. All 6 patients had low hemoglobin levels (mean 9.5 mg/100 ml) and low hematocrit levels (mean 29.5%). Reticulocyte count was available in 4 patients and was increased in all (mean 3.5%). When the stenotic native aortic valve configuration is bicuspid, the raphe tends to be calcified first and located perpendicular to the flow of the blood and may prevent the ring of the caged bioprosthesis from being transferred to the aortic wall, which is a requirement for full opening of the lumen of the bioprosthesis. Thus, thorough consideration needs to be made before performing TAVI in patients whose native aortic valve is stenotic and bicuspid.

Benchmarking Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves

BACKGROUND

The relative roles for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis are debated. This study analyzes the 5-year longitudinal outcomes of isolated SAVR in bicuspid vs tricuspid AV patients, particularly in low-risk patients.

METHODS

All patients undergoing isolated index SAVR at 1146 United States hospitals in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac database between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, with linkage to Medicare claims, were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 65,687 patients were analyzed, including of 9131 bicuspid patients (13.9%). Compared with tricuspid patients, bicuspid patients were significantly younger (median 70 vs 74 years, P < .001) with lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores (mean 1.6% vs 2.3%, P < .001) and lower risk profile. Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and major morbidity were similar, but risk-adjusted 5-year mortality was significantly lower in the bicuspid patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77), specifically in low-risk patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.76). Additionally, the bicuspid cohort had a lower 5-year readmission risk of heart failure, stroke, bleeding, or other cardiovascular causes (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative study, 30-day mortality was similar, but risk-adjusted 5-year mortality was significantly lower in bicuspid patients undergoing isolated SAVR compared with tricuspid patients, specifically low-risk and normal left ventricular ejection fraction patients. This analysis provides a much-needed 5-year longitudinal national-level benchmark to better inform the discussion of transcatheter vs SAVR in bicuspid patients.

Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Patients With Type 0 Bicuspid, Type 1 Bicuspid, and Tricuspid Aortic Valves

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. The study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe AS between 2012 and 2022 in this single-center retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was mortality, while secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications such as stroke and pacemaker implantation and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic performance.

RESULTS

The number of patients with AS with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy was 328, 302, and 642, respectively. Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves were used in the majority of patients (n=1160; 91.4%). In the matched population, differences in mortality (30 days: 4.2% versus 1.7% versus 1.7%, Poverall=0.522; 1 year: 10% versus 2.3% versus 6.2%, Poverall=0.099) and all stroke (30 days: 1.0% versus 0.9% versus 0.0%, Poverall=0.765; 1 year: 1.4% versus 1.6% versus 1.3%, Poverall=NS) were nonsignificant, and the incidence of overall in-hospital complications was comparable among groups. Ascending aortic diameter was the single predictor of 1-year mortality in type 0 bicuspid patients (hazard ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.03-2.44]; P=0.035). The proportion of patients with a mean residual gradient ≥20 mm Hg was the highest in those with type 0 bicuspid anatomy, although the need for permanent pacemaker implantation was the lowest in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Major clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy are equivalent at short- and mid-term follow-up. These observations merit further exploration in prospective international registries and randomized controlled trials.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: Procedural Planning and Clinical Outcomes

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart disease, with a prevalence of 1-2% and occurring in >20% of octogenarians referred for aortic valve replacement. However, BAV patients have been systematically excluded from pivotal randomized trials. Since TAVI indications are moving toward low-risk patients, an increase in the number of BAV patients who undergo TAVI is expected. BAV represents a challenge due to its unique morphological features (raphe, extreme asymmetrical valve calcifications, cusp asymmetry and aortopathy) and the lack of consensus about the accurate sizing method. The role of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the planification of the TAVI procedure is well-established, being useful to define the optimal valve sizing and the implantation strategy. New-generation devices, more experience of the operators and better planification of the procedure have been associated with similar clinical outcomes in bicuspid and tricuspid patients undergoing TAVI.

Determinants of device success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with type-0 bicuspid aortic stenosis

Background

Clinical evidence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with type-0 bicuspid aortic valve was relatively scarce.

Aims

Our goal was to explore determinants of device success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with type-0 bicuspid aortic valve morphology.

Methods

In this retrospective multicenter analysis, we included 59 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with type-0 bicuspid aortic valve morphology who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Type-0 bicuspid aortic valve was identified with multidetector computed tomography scans. The technical success rate was 89.8%, and the device success rate was 81.4%. Patients were divided into a device success group and a device failure group according to Valve Academic Research Consortium- 3 criteria.

Results

When we compared the two groups, we found that the ellipticity index of the aortic root and the presence of bulky calcifications at the commissure were statistically different (ellipticity index 35.7 ± 1.7 vs. 29.7 ± 1.1, p = 0.018; bulky calcification at the commissure, 54.5% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001). Further multivariate logistic analysis showed that bulky calcification at the commissure had a negative correlation with device success (odds ratio 0.030, 95% confidence interval 0.003-0.285, p = 0.002). Yet there was no statistical correlation between the ellipticity index and device success (odds ratio 0.818, 95% confidence interval 0.667-1.003, p = 0.053).

Conclusions

The presence of bulky calcifications at the commissure is negatively correlated with device success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with type-0 bicuspid aortic valve.

Clinical value of CT-derived simulations of transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation in challenging anatomies the PRECISE-TAVI trial

BACKGROUND

Preprocedural computed tomography planning improves procedural safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, contemporary imaging modalities do not account for device-host interactions.

AIMS

This study evaluates the value of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguideTM on overall device success in patients with challenging anatomies undergoing TAVI with a contemporary self-expanding supra-annular transcatheter heart valve.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter observational study included patients with a challenging anatomy defined as bicuspid aortic valve, small annulus or severely calcified aortic valve. We compared the heart team's transcatheter heart valve (THV) planning decision based on (1) conventional multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and (2) MSCT imaging with FEops HEARTguideTM simulations. Clinical outcomes and THV performance were followed up to 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients were included (median age 79.9 years (IQR 74.2-83.8), 42% male). In 35% of the patients, preprocedural planning changed after FEops HEARTguideTM simulations (change in valve size selection [12%] or target implantation height [23%]). A new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was implanted in 13% and >trace paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred in 28.5%. The contact pressure index (i.e., simulation output indicating the risk of conduction abnormalities) was significantly higher in patients with a new PPI, compared to those without (16.0% [25th-75th percentile 12.0-21.0] vs. 3.5% [25th-75th percentile 0-11.3], p < 0.01) The predicted PVL was 5.7 mL/s (25th-75th percentile 1.3-11.1) in patients with none-trace PVL, 12.7 (25th-75th percentile 5.5-19.1) in mild PVL and 17.7 (25th-75th percentile 3.6-19.4) in moderate PVL (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

FEops HEARTguideTM simulations may provide enhanced insights in the risk for PVL or PPI after TAVI with a self-expanding supra-annular THV in complex anatomies.

Latest-iteration balloon- and self-expandable transcatheter valves for severe bicuspid aortic stenosis: the TRITON study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

No comparisons have been published yet regarding the newest iteration of balloon- and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis.

METHODS

Multicenter registry of consecutive patients with severe BAV stenosis treated with balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (Myval and SAPIEN 3 Ultra, S3U) or self-expanding Evolut PRO+(EP+). TriMatch analysis was carried out to minimize the impact of baseline differences. The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day device success, and the secondary endpoints were the composite and individual components of early safety at 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients (age 76.6±7.6 years, 71.9% males) were included: 122 Myval (33.9%), 129 S3U (35.8%), and 109 EP+(30.3%). The mean STS score was 3.6±1.9%. There were no cases of coronary artery occlusion, annulus rupture, aortic dissection, or procedural death. The primary endpoint of device success at 30 days was significantly higher in the Myval group (Myval: 100%; S3U: 87.5%; and EP+: 81.3%), mainly due to higher residual aortic gradients with S3U and greater≥moderate aortic regurgitation (AR) with EP+. No significant differences were found in the unadjusted rate of pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with BAV stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgery, Myval, S3U and EP+showed similar safety but balloon-expandable Myval had better gradients than S3U, and both balloon-expandable devices had lower residual AR than EP+, suggesting that, taking into consideration the patient-specific risks, any of these devices can be selected with optimal outcomes.

Late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid versus tricuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Based on previous meta-analyses including immediate/1-year results, individuals with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis can undergo TAVI with similar outcomes as those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), but with higher rates of periprocedural complications. The widespread belief is that BAV patients would have poor results in comparison with TAV patients after TAVI over time. Therefore, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by January 2022 to compare late outcomes of patients with BAV versus TAV who underwent TAVI. This approach reconstructs individual patient data (IPD) based on the published Kaplan-Meier graphs. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including 9,071 patients with BAV and 171,070 patients with TAV. Patients with BAV had a significantly lower risk of mortality (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.65-0.77, P<0.001), however, this result was driven by populations in which the risk score was statistically significantly lower in the BAV group (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.63-0.76, P<0.001) and by populations in which the BAV group was statistically significantly younger (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64-0.81, P<0.001). In patients with selected BAV anatomy deemed favorable for TAVI, we did not find worse survival over time in comparison with patients with TAV; however, the follow-up beyond 1 year remains limited in the studies and we need more investigation for specific bicuspid anatomies with longer follow-up. Most importantly, randomized controlled trials including exclusively BAV patients treated with TAVI versus SAVR are warranted.

Sutureless Valve in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: Modified Technique and Midterm Outcome

BACKGROUND

The sutureless valve has gained popularity for degenerative aortic valve stenosis but not congenital bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) due to anatomical challenges. We reviewed our modified implant techniques for patients with BAV.

METHODS

From June 2015 to June 2019, 66 patients with aortic valve stenosis were treated with the Perceval sutureless valve, 20 of whom had BAV. The demographics, type of BAV (the Sievers classification), and associated pathologies, surgical outcomes, and midterm hemodynamics were recorded.

RESULTS

The median age was 64 (range: 49-81) years and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.186 (range: 0.407-6.384). Annular plication was performed in 9 (75%) of 12 type 0 and 3 (37.5%) of 8 type I, with implanted valve sizes of M, L, and XL in 6, 10, 4 cases, respectively. Three patients, all type 0 in the initial learning periods, required intraoperative redeployment due to malposition of the valve. The final implant was successful in all without conversion to traditional prosthesis. The median extubation time was 4 hours and the durations of intensive care unit and hospital stay were 1 and 6 days. At a median follow-up of 46 (23-72) months, there was one late mortality due to hemorrhagic stroke sequel. The last echo revealed none had more than mild paravalvular leakage and the mean transvalvular pressure gradient remained stable at 9.70 (range: 6.94-15.0) mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

The sutureless valve can achieve satisfactory outcomes in BAV without paravalvular leakage and excellent hemodynamics. It may serve as the benchmark for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in this unique population.

Clinical outcomes and the impact of valve morphology for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is present in approximately 0.5%-2% of the general population, causing significant aortic stenosis (AS) in 12%-37% of affected individuals. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being considered the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic AS across all risk spectra.

AIM

Aim Our study aims to compare TAVR outcomes in patients with BAV versus tricuspid aortic valves (TAV).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials. Studies were included if they included BAV and TAV patients undergoing TAVR with quantitative data available for at least one of our predefined outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by the random-effects model using Stata software.

RESULTS

Fifty studies of 203,288 patients were included. BAV patients had increased 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23 [1.00-1.50], p = 0.05), in-hospital stroke (OR = 1.39 [1.01-1.93], p = 0.05), in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 1.13 [1.00-1.27], p = 0.04; OR = 1.16 [1.04-1.13], p = 0.01) and in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year aortic regurgitation (AR) (OR = 1.48 [1.19-1.83], p < 0.01; OR = 1.79 [1.26-2.52], p < 0.01; OR = 1.64 [1.03-2.60], p = 0.04). Subgroup analysis on new-generation valves showed a reduced 1-year all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86 [CI = 0.75-0.98], p = 0.03), despite higher in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 0.1.21 [1.04-1.41], p = 0.01; OR = 1.17 [1.05-1.31], p = 0.01) and in-hospital AR (OR = 1.62 [1.14-2.31], p = 0.01) in the BAV group. The quality of included studies was moderate-to-high, and only three analyses presented high heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

TAVR is associated with comparable outcomes in patients with BAV and TAV. Careful selection of BAV cases by preprocedural assessment of valve anatomy and burden of calcification, pre- and post-procedural dilation, and implementing newer generations of valves may improve the safety and efficacy of TAVR in BAV patients.

One-year outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: a report from the Japanese Nationwide registry (J-TVT registry)

The outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) remains unclear, particularly among Asian patients that are known to have different valvular morphology and lower body habitus. This study investigated patient characteristics, procedural and 1-year outcome of TAVR for BAV within national TAVR registry in Japan. The patient-level data were extracted from the J-TVT (Japanese Transcatheter Valvular Therapy) registry between August 2013 and December 2018; overall, there were 423 patients (2.5%) with BAV and 16,802 patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). At baseline, patients with BAV were younger and had less arteriosclerotic comorbidities. There was no statistically significant difference between BAV and TAV groups in conversion to surgery (0.5% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.34) and 30-day mortality (0.5% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.18). Cumulative all-cause survival and survival from major adverse events were analyzed. Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. All-cause mortality and major adverse event rate at 1 year were comparable between the two groups. Relative hazard for all-cause mortality for BAV compared to TAV was 1.01 (0.70-1.45; p = 0.96), and for major adverse event was 0.94 (0.69-1.27; p = 0.67). From the Japanese nationwide TAVR registry, procedural and 1-year outcome of TAVR in BAV was as favorable as TAVR in TAV.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

Because of its anatomic and procedural complexities, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) has been excluded from previous trials investigating transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVR in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve patients. We searched the databases systematically from inception until March 2023 for studies that reported the outcomes of TAVR in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve patients. The primary focus was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Additional outcomes included outcomes at 30-day follow-up. Secondary and subgroup analyses were performed on propensity-matched patients, patients at low surgical risk, and based on the type of transcatheter valve type. We included 30 studies with a total of 193,274 patients who underwent TAVR, of which 14,353 patients had BAV stenosis. The rate of 1-year mortality was lower in the BAV group compared with the tricuspid group with the results reaching statistical significance (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.98, p = 0.02). The rate of 30-day stroke, however, was higher in patients with BAV who underwent TAVR (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.43, p <0.05). Other 30-day clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Similar outcomes were observed in secondary analysis of matched populations with less mortality and higher rate of stroke in patients with BAV (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96, p = 0.01, and OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.75, p <0.05, respectively). Comparing the outcomes for self-expandable and balloon-expandable valves resulted in similar results. Subgroup analysis of low-surgical-risk patients similarly showed lower 1-year mortality in patients with BAV (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91, p = 0.01), without difference in 30-day stroke between the 2 groups (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88, p = 0.30). In conclusion, this report indicates that TAVR is safe and feasible in patients with BAV, including patients at low surgical risk. The higher rate of 30-day stroke, however, warrants caution when pursuing TAVR in this population. More studies, specifically randomized trials, are still warranted to further assess the safety and the long-term outcomes in this group.

Successful Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in an Elderly Patient with Calcified Bicuspid Aortic Valve with Calcified Raphe: A Case Report

At present, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not only used in high-surgical-risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS), but its use has also been extended to low-risk patients, resulting in its increasing utilization in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). BAV however presents unique challenges for TAVR due to its distinct valvular anatomy, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains the primary recommended method of aortic valve replacement in patients with BAV. Nonetheless, observational data have been quickly accumulating regarding the successful use of TAVR in BAV. Here, we present a case of a 73-year-old female who presented with heart failure symptoms and was found to have severe AS and BAV with calcified raphe (Sievers 1a). Due to her age and complicated medical history, including coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease, she was considered to be at intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score 5.4%) and underwent TAVR with the successful deployment of a 29 mm Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, California, USA). A post-procedure echocardiogram confirmed the appropriate placement of the prosthesis without any valvular or paravalvular regurgitation. This case, therefore, adds to the growing body of evidence regarding the use of TAVR in patients with BAV despite anatomical challenges.

Hemodynamic Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely adopted treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Its popularity has grown significantly in recent years due to advancements in technology and imaging. As TAVI use is increasingly expanded to younger patients, the need for long-term assessment and durability becomes paramount. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic tools to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of aortic prosthesis, with a special focus on the comparison between transcatheter and surgical aortic valves and between self-expandable and balloon-expandable valves. Moreover, the discussion will encompass how cardiovascular imaging can effectively detect long-term structural valve deterioration.

ESC/EACTS vs. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a serious and complex condition, for which optimal management continues to evolve rapidly. An understanding of current clinical practice guidelines is critical to effective patient care and shared decision-making. This state of the art review of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines and 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines compares their recommendations for AS based on the evidence to date. The European and American guidelines were generally congruent with the exception of three key distinctions. First, the European guidelines recommend intervening at a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55%, compared with 60% over serial imaging by the American guidelines for asymptomatic patients. Second, the European guidelines recommend a threshold of ≥65 years for surgical bioprosthesis, whereas the American guidelines employ multiple age categories, providing latitude for patient factors and preferences. Third, the guidelines endorse different age cut-offs for transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement, despite limited evidence. This review also discusses trends indicating a decreasing proportion of mechanical valve replacements. Finally, the review identifies gaps in the literature for areas including transcatheter aortic valve implantation in asymptomatic patients, the appropriateness of Ross procedures, concomitant coronary revascularization with aortic valve replacement, and bicuspid AS. To summarize, this state of the art review compares the latest European and American guidelines on the management of AS to highlight three areas of divergence: timing of intervention, valve selection, and surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement criteria.

Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not widely used in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease and has not yet been studied in randomized clinical trials. We characterized the rate of use and outcomes of TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with BAV.

METHODS

Adults with BAV stenosis receiving SAVR or TAVR procedures were abstracted from the 2012 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Risk-adjusted analyses were performed with NRD-provided weights and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to examine the association of treatment strategy on inpatient mortality, complications, and hospitalization resource utilization. Nonelective readmissions within 90 days of discharge and reintervention at the first readmission were also examined.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 56 331 patients with BAV requiring aortic valve replacement, 6.8% underwent TAVR. Unadjusted analysis demonstrated higher index hospitalization mortality for TAVR compared with SAVR. Upon risk adjustment using NRD-provided weights, the odds of pacemaker implantation remained significantly higher for TAVR patients compared with SAVR, with no significant difference in mortality. When NRD-provided survey weights were applied, TAVR had higher rates of 90-day readmission. Adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weights resolved these differences between the 2 groups. Regardless of the risk-adjustment method, the odds of reintervention were consistently higher among BAV TAVR patients compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis demonstrates comparable in-hospital mortality and morbidity for TAVR and SAVR patients in the moderate-risk era. With increasing TAVR use in BAV, surgeons must further refine selection criteria with consideration of concomitant aortopathy and implications of reintervention.

Outcomes of Adults with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Urgent or Emergent vs. Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Within an Integrated Health Care Delivery System

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be used to urgently or emergently treat severe aortic stenosis, but outcomes for this high-risk population have not been well-characterized. We sought to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing urgent or emergent vs. elective TAVR.

Methods

We identified all adults who received TAVR for primary aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Elective or urgent/emergent procedure status was based on standard Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Data were obtained from electronic health records, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, and state/national reporting databases. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were performed.

Results

Among 1564 eligible adults that underwent TAVR, 81 (5.2%) were classified as urgent/emergent. These patients were more likely to have heart failure (63.0% vs. 47.4%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (21.0% vs. 11.8%), or a prior aortic valve balloon valvuloplasty (13.6% vs. 5.0%) and experienced higher unadjusted rates of 30-day and 1-year morbidity and mortality. Urgent/emergent TAVR status was independently associated with non-improved quality of life at 30-days (hazard ratio, 4.87; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury within 1-year post-TAVR (hazard ratio, 2.11; p = 0.01). There was not a significant difference in adjusted 1-year mortality with urgent/emergent TAVR.

Conclusions

Urgent/emergent TAVR status was uncommon and associated with high-risk clinical features and higher unadjusted rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Procedure status may be useful to identify patients less likely to experience significant short term improvement in health-related quality of life post-TAVR.

Comparison of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for aortic stenosis (AS). However, there are still differences in the procedural process and outcome of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with TAVI compared with tricuspid aortic valve.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper aims to summarize the main characteristics and clinical evidence of TAVI in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves and compare the outcomes of TAVI procedure.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of TAVI in patients with BAV has shown similar clinical outcomes compared with tricuspid aortic valve. The efficacy of TAVI for challenging BAV anatomies remains a concern due to the lack of randomized trials. Detailed preprocedural planning is of great importance in low-surgical-risk BAV patients. A better understanding of which subtypes of BAV anatomy are at greater risk for adverse outcomes can potentially benefit the selection of TAVI or open-heart surgery in low surgical risk AS patients.

TAVR in 2023: Who Should Not Get It?

Since the first transcatheter delivery of an aortic valve prosthesis was performed by Cribier et al in 2002, the picture of aortic stenosis (AS) therapeutics has changed dramatically. Initiated from an indication of inoperable to high surgical risk, extending to intermediate and low risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an approved treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic AS across all the risk categories. The current evidence supports TAVR as a frontline therapy for treating severe AS. The crucial question remains concerning the subset of patients who still are not ideal candidates for TAVR because of certain inherent anatomic, nonmodifiable, and procedure-specific factors. Therefore, in this study, we focus on these scenarios and reasons for referring selected patients for surgical aortic valve replacement in 2023.

Ongoing experience with patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used to treat younger, lower-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). Patient-specific computer simulation may identify patients at risk for developing paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and major conduction disturbance. Only limited prospective experience of this technology exist. We wished to describe our ongoing experience with patient-specific computer simulation.

METHODS

Patients who were referred for consideration of TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) and had BAV identified on pre-procedural cardiac computed tomography imaging underwent patient-specific computer simulation. The computer simulations were reviewed by the Heart Team and used to guide surgical or transcatheter treatment approaches and to aid in THV sizing and positioning. Clinical outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Between May 2019 and May 2021, 16 patients with BAV were referred for consideration of TAVR with a self-expanding THV. Sievers Type 1 morphology was present in 15 patients and Type 0 in the remaining patient. Two patients were predicted to develop moderate-to-severe PVR with a TAVR procedure and these patients underwent successful surgical aortic valve replacement. In the remaining 14 patients, computer simulation was used to optimize THV sizing and positioning to minimise PVR and conduction disturbance. One patient with a low valve implantation depth developed moderate PVR and this complication was correctly predicted by the computer simulations. No patient required insertion of a new permanent pacemaker.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific computer simulation may be used to guide the most appropriate treatment modality for patients with BAV. The usage of computer simulation to guide THV sizing and positioning was associated with favourable clinical outcomes.

Propensity-Matched Outcomes Comparing TAVR in Bicuspid vs Surgery in Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

Objective

To compare 1-year outcomes in patients at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and low-risk patients with tricuspid AS following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Background

The pivotal randomized, prospective, multicenter TAVR trials compared TAVR vs SAVR in patients with tricuspid AS. No such trials exist for bicuspid AS.

Methods

The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled 150 patients from 25 sites in the United States. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification based on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Annular measurements guided valve sizing. These patients were propensity-matched to the SAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using 1:1 5-to-1-digit Greedy method, resulting in 144 matched pairs. For both trials, an independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and the same independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms.

Results

The 1-year composite of death, disabling stroke, or aortic valve-related rehospitalization for bicuspid TAVR vs tricuspid SAVR was 6 (4.2%) vs 6 (4.2%) (P = .99). The effective orifice area (2.2 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 2.0 ± 0.6 cm2) was larger and the valve gradient was lower (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 11.2 ± 4.7 mm Hg) in the TAVR group at 1 year (both P < .001). Moderate/severe aortic regurgitation was present in 1 TAVR and 2 SAVR patients (0.8% vs 1.6%; P > .99).

Conclusions

In this select group of low-risk bicuspid patients, in the short-term follow-up, TAVR appears to have similar outcomes to those seen in comparable low-risk tricuspid patients undergoing SAVR.

Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis

Background: Comparative data of the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-3)-defined technical success between bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) remain lacking. Aims: We sought to compare the technical success and other clinical outcomes between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: A registration-based analysis was performed for 402 patients (211 and 191 cases of bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively). The primary outcome was VARC-3-defined technical success. Additional analysis was performed to assess outcomes for up to one year between the two groups. Results: Bicuspid AS patients tended to be younger (74 years vs. 77 years; p < 0.001) with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (4.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.003). Bicuspid AS patients showed a lower prevalence of hypertension and peripheral vascular diseases. Technical failure was encountered in 17.7% of these patients, driven primarily by the high incidence of second valve implantation. The technical success rates were comparable between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups (82.5% vs. 82.2%, p = 0.944). Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and larger sinotubular junctional diameter (STJ) were identified as predictors of technical failure, whereas CKD, impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), along with larger STJ, were predictors of cardiac technical failure. Technical failure was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year, as evidenced by the Cox multivariable analysis. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in the technical success rates and most clinical outcomes between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups. Technical failure conferred an increased risk for both 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortalities.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid valve morphology: a roadmap towards standardization

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients.

Clinical outcomes of bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expandable valves

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of available data on specific prognostic comparisons between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with stenotic Type 0, Type 1 bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between aortic valve morphology and outcomes following self-expandable TAVR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with aortic stenosis(AS) undergoing self-expandable TAVR were enrolled and categorized into three groups (Type 0/Type 1 BAV or TAV) according to the Sievers classification. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) within 2 years. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications and major cardiovascular events observed in clinical follow-ups. Clinical outcomes at 2 years following TAVR were compared among three groups using Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 344 AS patients (Type 0: 86; Type 1: 109; TAV: 149) were enrolled. The presence of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (PVL) was significantly higher in patients with Type 0 and Type 1 BAV versus TAV (10.47% vs. 16.51% vs. 6.71%, p = 0.043). All-cause 30-day mortality (2.33% vs. 0.92% vs. 2.68%, p = 0.626) and 2-year mortality (3.49% vs. 5.50% vs. 6.71%, p = 0.657) was comparable among the three groups. However, rehospitalization for HF within 2 years was significantly higher in Type 1 BAV (11.63% vs. 20.18% vs. 8.72%, p = 0.020). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that a higher STS score, Type 1 BAV morphology and excess leaflet calcification (≥ median calcium volume (CV) of the entire population) were independent predictors for HF rehospitalization. Additional intragroup Kaplan‒Meier analysis showed that excess leaflet calcification could predict higher long-term mortality and rehospitalization risk for HF(HR (95% CI): 3.430 (1.166-10.090), log rank p = 0.017) in Type 1 BAV patients.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of self-expandable TAVR in BAV-AS patients might vary depending on valve subtypes. BAV patients with excess leaflet calcification and a raphe, especially calcified, had an increased risk of moderate PVL and HF readmission in mid-to-long term follow-ups.

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.