Safety and efficacy of minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a new-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves

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.

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.

Results of new-generation balloon vs. self-expandable transcatheter heart valves for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

Background

Data comparing new-generation self-expandable (SEV, Evolut R/PRO) vs. balloon-expandable (BEV, SAPIEN 3/3Ultra) transcatheter heart valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) is limited. Our aim was to compare 30-day results of SEV and BEV implantations in patients with BAV.

Methods

A total of 2009 patients underwent TAVR between April 2015 and June 2021 at our Centre. From our institutional registry, we identified 106 consecutive patients with BAV who underwent TAVR using SEV and BEV.

Results

A 106 patients (n = 68 BEV; n = 38 SEV) were included. Mean age was 74.6 ± 8.8 years (BEV) vs.75.3 ± 8.7 years (SEV) (p = 0.670) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.6 ± 1.9 (BEV) vs. 2.6 ± 1.6 (SEV) (p = 0.374), respectively. Device landing zone calcium volume (DLZ-CV) was 1168 ± 811 vs. 945 ± 850 mm3 (p = 0.192). Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 device success at 30 days was similar (BEV 80.9% vs. SEV 86.8%; p = 0.433). More post-dilatations were performed in SEVs (23.5% BEV vs. 52.6% SEV; p = 0.002). Overall mean gradient at 30 days follow-up was 11.9 ± 4.6 mmHG (BEV) vs. 9.2 ± 3.0 mmHG (SEV) (p = 0.002). A mild-moderate degree of paravalvular leak (PVL) was detected more often in the SEV group (7.4% vs. 13.2%; p = 0.305). A trend towards higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation was observed in SEV (11.8% vs. 23.7%; p = 0.109).

Conclusions

Treatment of BAV revealed similar performance using BEV and SEV. In this retrospective cohort study, hemodynamics were more favorable with the SEV, although there was a trend toward more PVL and significantly more post-dilations.

Sex-Specific Differences in Aortic Valve Calcification Between Bicuspid and Tricuspid Severe Aortic Stenosis

Sex-specific thresholds of aortic valve calcification (AVC) correlate with aortic stenosis (AS) and may complement echocardiography to determine AS severity. Importantly, current guideline-recommended thresholds of AVC scores derived by multislice computed tomography do not distinguish between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sex-specific differences in the amount of AVC in patients with severe AS and tricuspid (TAV) versus bicuspid (BAV) aortic valve morphologies, retrospectively evaluated by 2 tertiary care institutions. The inclusion criteria comprised patients with severe AS and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and suitable imaging examinations. The study included 1,450 patients (723 men; 49.9%) with severe AS, including 1,335 patients with TAV (92.1%) and 115 with BAV (17.9%). The calculated Agatston score was higher in BAV patients (men: BAV 4,358 [2,644 to 6,005] AU vs TAV 2,643 [1,727 to 3,794] AU, p <0.01; women: BAV 2,174 [1,330 to 4,378] AU vs TAV 1,703 [964 to 2,534] AU, p <0.01), also when indexed for valve dimensions and body surface area (men: BAV 2,227 [321 to 3,105] AU/m² vs TAV 1,333 [872 to 1,913] AU/m², p <0.01; women: BAV 1,326 [782 to 2,148] AU/m² vs TAV 930 [546 to 1,456] AU/m², p <0.01). Differences between the BAV- and TAV-derived Agatston score was more prominent in concordant severe AS. In conclusion, sex-specific Agatston scores in severe AS were approximately 1/3 higher in patients with BAV than in patients with TAV for both women and men. Optimal AVC thresholds should be adjusted for BAV, also respecting considerable prognostic implications.

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.