Aortic valve anatomy and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves

Complications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A comprehensive analysis and management strategies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) marks a significant advancement in treating aortic stenosis (AS), especially for patients with high surgical risks. This concise review outlines TAVR's development, its broader application to include lower-risk patients, and innovations in the device and procedural technology. Clinical trials, notably the PARTNER series, affirm TAVR's efficacy, showing it matches or surpasses surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in mortality reduction, hemodynamic benefits, and symptom alleviation, including heart failure. However, TAVR entails complications such as paravalvular leakage (PVL), conduction disorders, and increased cerebrovascular event risks. We evaluate these issues, their prevalence, causative factors, and clinical consequences, emphasizing improvements in valve design and technique that have significantly lowered PVL rates. The role of aortic valve anatomy and calcification in PVL and conduction issues is analyzed, underlining the necessity for meticulous patient selection and procedural planning. Further, the review delves into cerebrovascular event risks, their origins, and preventative strategies, including cerebral protection devices and the judicious use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies. TAVR presents a less invasive, promising alternative to SAVR, but requires careful complication management to optimize patient results. Ongoing innovation and research are vital for advancing TAVR's techniques, improving valve designs, and extending its reach, thereby enhancing AS patients' quality of life.

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.

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.

Anatomical morphology of the aortic valve in Chinese aortic stenosis patients and clinical results after downsize strategy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to describe the aortic valve morphology in Chinese patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), and the impact of sizing strategies and related procedural outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR were consecutively enrolled from 2012 to 2019. The anatomy and morphology of the aortic root were assessed. "Downsize" strategy was preformed when patients had complex morphology. The clinical outcomes of patients who performed downsize strategy were compared with those received annular sizing strategy. The primary outcome was device success rate, and secondary outcomes included Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 clinical outcomes variables based on 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 293 patients were enrolled. Among them, 95 patients (32.4%) had bicuspid aortic valve. The calcium volume (Hounsfield Unit-850) of aortic root was 449.90 (243.15-782.15) mm 3 . Calcium is distributed mostly on the leaflet level. Downsize strategy was performed in 204 patients (69.6%). Compared with the patients who performed annular sizing strategy, those received downsize strategy achieved a similar device success rate (82.0% [73] vs . 83.3% [170], P  = 0.79). Aortic valve gradients (downsize strategy group vs . annular sizing group, 11.28 mmHg vs. 11.88 mmHg, P  = 0.64) and percentages of patients with moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation 2.0% (4/204) vs . 4.5% (4/89), P  = 0.21) were similar in the two groups at 30 days after TAVR. These echocardiographic results were sustainable for one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese TAVR patients have more prevalent bicuspid morphology and large calcium volume of aortic root. Calcium is distributed mostly on the leaflet level. Compare with annular sizing strategy, downsize strategy provided a non-inferior device success rate and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic performance in self-expanding TAVR procedure.

Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical adverse events in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) anatomy and the efficacy of balloon-expandable (BE) vs. self-expanding (SE) valves in the BAV population. Comparisons aforementioned will be made stratified into early- and new-generation devices. Differences of prosthetic geometry on CT between patients with BAV and TAV were presented. In addition, BAV morphological presentations in included studies were summarized.

Method

Observational studies and a randomized controlled trial of patients with BAV undergoing TAVR were included according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Results

A total of 43 studies were included in the final analysis. In patients undergoing TAVR, type 1 BAV was the most common phenotype and type 2 BAV accounted for the least. Significant higher risks of conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), the need of a second valve, a moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL), device failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke were observed in patients with BAV than in patients with TAV during hospitalization. BAV had a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) both at hospitalization and a 30-day follow-up. Risk of 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients with BAV than that with TAV [odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.97, p = 0.01]. BE transcatheter heart valves (THVs) had higher risks of annular rupture but a lower risk of the need of a second valve and a new PPI than SE THVs. Moreover, BE THV was less expanded and more elliptical in BAV than in TAV. In general, the rates of clinical adverse events were lower in new-generation THVs than in early-generation THVs in both BAV and TAV.

Conclusions

Despite higher risks of conversion to SAVR, the need of a second valve, moderate or severe PVL, device failure, AKI, stroke, and new PPI, TAVR seems to be a viable option for selected patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), which demonstrated a potential benefit of 1-year survival, especially among lower surgical risk population using new-generation devices. Larger randomized studies are needed to guide patient selection and verified the durable performance of THVs in the BAV population.

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.

BACKGROUND

At present, limited observational data exist supporting TAVR in the context of bicuspid anatomy.

METHODS

Primary endpoints were 1-year survival and device success. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and a composite endpoint of periprocedural complications; incidence rates of individual procedural endpoints were also explored individually.

RESULTS

In the main analysis, 17 studies and 181,433 patients undergoing TAVR were included, of whom 6,669 (0.27%) had BAV. A secondary analysis of 7,071 matched subjects with similar baseline characteristics was also performed. Device success and 1-year survival rates were similar between subjects with BAV and those with TAV (97% vs 94% [P = 0.55] and 91.3% vs 90.8% [P = 0.22], respectively). In patients with BAV, a trend toward a higher risk for periprocedural complications was observed in our main analysis (risk ratio [RR]: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99-1.27; P = 0.07) but not in the matched population secondary analysis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 0.99). The risk for moderate to severe PVL was higher in subjects with BAV (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58; P < 0.0001) as well as the incidence of cerebral ischemic events (2.4% vs 1.6%; P = 0.015) and of annular rupture (0.3% vs 0.02%; P = 0.014) in matched subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR is a feasible option among selected patients with BAV anatomy, but the higher rates of moderate to severe PVL, annular rupture, and cerebral ischemic events observed in the BAV group warrant caution and further evidence.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Younger Patients: A New Challenge

The number of aortic stenosis patients in Western countries is increasing, along with better life conditions and expectancies. Presently, the volume of percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is incessantly increasing, and has already overcome the surgical replacement procedure volume. According to the literature, TAVI is a feasible procedure even among low surgical risk patients, and American guidelines have extended the indications for TAVI, including shifting patient evaluations from high/low STS scores to old/young patients, a "paradigm shift" of aortic stenosis evaluation. As a result, low-risk young (<75 years-old) population management could be the next challenge in cardiology. To manage the life conditions of a 65 year old patient affected by aortic stenosis who is undergoing TAVI, one of the most crucial issue will be bioprosthesis durability and the appropriate intervention to make in cases of valve dysfunction or failure.

Contemporary management of severe symptomatic bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: the BiTri Registry

AIMS

A greater number of patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) may be identified and treated as indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are expected to expand to younger patients. We evaluated the contemporary frequency and management of symptomatic patients with stenotic BAV in a multicenter European registry.

METHODS

Between November 2017 and February 2018, all consecutive patients admitted for symptomatic aortic stenosis across six high-volume European hospitals were prospectively enrolled in the BiTri registry.

RESULTS

Of the 832 patients, 17% (n = 138) had a BAV. The most frequent BAV phenotypes were type 1 (left--right coronary cusps fusion 64%) and type 1 (right-noncoronary cusps fusion 17%). Type 0 and type 2 accounted for 12 and 2%, respectively. When compared with tricuspid patients (n = 694), BAV patients were younger, with lower surgical risk. The transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) identified BAV in 64% of patients. Multisliced computed tomography (MSCT) additionally completed the diagnosis in 20% of patients. Surgical inspection finally identified the remaining undiagnosed 16% of BAV. A combination of TTE and MSCT was the most common diagnosis method for BAV. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the predominant therapeutic option for BAV (70%) whilst TAVI was performed in 26%.

CONCLUSION

BAV is frequently observed in symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis. These patients are younger, have a lower risk profile and are predominantly treated with SAVR as compared with tricuspid patients. However, TAVI is performed in almost one-third of BAV patients in contemporary European practice. TTE combined with MSCT identified 84% of BAV.

Challenging Anatomies for TAVR-Bicuspid and Beyond

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as the standard treatment for the majority of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to patients across all risk groups, optimal patient selection strategies and device implantation techniques become increasingly important. A significant number of patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement present with challenging anatomies and clinical indications that had been historically considered a contraindication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This article aims to highlight and discuss some of the potential obstacles that are encountered in clinical practice with a particular emphasis on bicuspid aortic valve disease.

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

Introduction

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are constantly expanding, including younger patients. Bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) often occur in this group. In order to achieve optimal treatment results in younger patients, it is necessary to develop an effective method for selecting the size of implanted valves.

Aim

To compare the results of TAVI with use of a self-expanding prosthesis in patients with a BAV and a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) with valve selection based on annular sizing.

Material and methods

The diagnosis of BAV and TAV and measurements (annular sizing) were based on multi-slice computed tomography scans. Eighty-three patients received a self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R prosthesis. In group I (BAV) there were 21 (25.3%) patients and in group II (TAV) there were 62 (74.7%) patients.

Results

The groups did not differ in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Device success was achieved in 16 (76.2%) and 55 (88.7%) (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. Composite endpoints: early safety occurred in 5 (23.8%) and 11 (17.7%) patients (p =NS) in group I and II respectively; clinical efficacy occurred in 10 (47.6%) and 28 (45.2%) patients (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. 30-day mortality was 4.8% vs 9.7%, 1-year mortality was 28.6% vs 17.7% (p = NS) in group I and II respectively.

Conclusions

TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and BAV is as effective as in patients with TAV using self-expanding prostheses if the valve selection is based on annular sizing.

Determinants of paravalvular leakage following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis

AIMS

Paravalvular leakage (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a common complication in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). However, predictors and mechanisms of PVL are not well understood in this subset. The aim of this study was to analyse determinants and mechanisms of PVL in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of the 2394 consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR using new-generation valves at our centre, we identified 242 cases with BAV. To adjust for baseline differences, we performed 3 : 1 propensity score matching (TAVPS  n = 726). We analysed the aortic root anatomy and calcification as well as the number, circumferential distribution, and predilection sites of PVL using pre-procedural multidetector computed tomography and post-TAVR echocardiography. In the matched cohort, the incidence of PVL ≥mild (BAV 51.9% vs. TAVPS 51.7%; P = 0.955) and PVL ≥moderate (BAV 5.0% vs. TAVPS 3.7%; P = 0.393), the circumferential distribution, and independent predictors were similar between BAV and TAVPS. Both the presence of peri-annular calcium chunks or LVOT calcification were highly associated with PVL in BAV and TAVPS patients, whereas in BAV patients neither the presence of a calcium bridge nor the volume of its calcification was related to PVL. Notably, the spatial localization of these lesions did not necessarily match the circumferential leak position.

CONCLUSION

The incidence, circumferential distribution, predilection sites, and predictors of PVL were similar in matched population of BAV and TAVPS patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR using new-generation devices. These novel findings suggest a common underlying mechanism of PVL in both entities.

New Challenging Scenarios in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Valve-in-valve, Bicuspid and Native Aortic Regurgitation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the most frequently performed structural technique in the field of interventional cardiology. Initially, this procedure was only used in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive risk. Now, barely one decade after its introduction, TAVI indications extend to low- and intermediate-risk patients. Despite these advances, several challenging scenarios are still on the periphery of the evidence base for TAVI. These include valve-in-valve procedures, lower-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve and the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation. Whereas the valve-in-valve indication has expanded rapidly, evidence for the use of TAVI compared with conventional surgery for bicuspid aortic valve is limited, including the best choice of device should TAVI be used. Evidence for TAVI in pure aortic regurgitation is still anecdotal because of suboptimal outcomes. Operators worldwide have described variations in the TAVI procedural technique to achieve commissural alignment and to minimise the rate of pacemaker use through cusp overlap implantation. In light of the potential clinical benefits, this may also be an area of further development. This review aims to discuss the current evidence available supporting the use of TAVI for these new indications.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review

In the last decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The efficacy and safety of TAVR were first proven in inoperable and high-risk patients. Then, subsequent randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate- and low-risk populations. As TAVR was progressively studied and clinically used in lower-risk patients, issues were raised questioning its opportunity in a younger population with a longer life-expectancy. As long-term follow-up data mainly derive from old studies with early generation devices on high or intermediate surgical risk patients, results can hardly be extended to most of currently treated patients who often show a low surgical risk and are treated with newer generation prostheses. Thus, in this low-risk younger population, decision making is difficult due to the lack of supporting data. The aim of the present review is to revise current literature regarding TAVR in younger patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement during the COVID-19 pandemic-Current practice and concerns

COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact on the provision of healthcare. COVID-19 can manifest with cardiac and thrombotic presentations. Additionally, patients with cardiovascular comorbidities are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection. This in turn has led to a significant reduction in the provision of cardiac surgery with alternative management options utilized to address patients with significant disease. In terms of aortic valve disease, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provides advantages over surgical aortic valve replacement in with a lower burden on healthcare resources. COVID-19 also resulted in changes in management strategies and as such TAVI is now being considered in younger- and low-risk patients. However, long term data with regard to TAVI is still unknown, and the use in patient groups that have been excluded in the large pivotal studies that established TAVI as an alternative to surgery has raised specific concerns in the use of TAVI as the preferred treatment choice. With the long term ramification unknown, it is essential that decisions are made with caution.

Current results and remaining challenges of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement expansion in intermediate and low risk patients

TAVR has become the standard treatment in patients at increased surgical risk (STS or EuroSCORE II ≥4% or logistic EuroSCORE I ≥ 10% or other risk factors not included in these scores such as frailty, porcelain aorta, sequelae of chest radiation) and it is increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low (STS or EuroSCORE II <4% or logistic EuroSCORE I < 10%) surgical risk. Although non-inferiority has been demonstrated in intermediate and low-risk patients, several challenges need to be addressed before expansion to younger patients. Current trends, trials results, and remaining challenges are summarized and discussed in this review.