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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies on fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance in improving clinical outcomes after myocardial revascularization, yielding conflicting results. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease following FFR-guided or angiography-guided revascularization.

METHODS

Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies were included. Coprimary endpoints were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022344765).

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies enrolling 393 588 patients were included. FFR-guided revascularization was associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause death (OR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.53-0.73), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.59-0.84), and MACE (OR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.70-0.85). When only RCTs were considered, no significant difference between the 2 strategies was observed for any endpoints. However, the use of FFR was associated with reduced rates of revascularizations and treated lesions. Metaregression suggested that the higher the rate of revascularized patients the lower the benefit of FFR guidance on MACE reduction compared with angiography guidance (P=.012). Similarly, higher rates of patients with acute coronary syndromes were associated with a lower benefit of FFR-guided revascularization (P=.039).

CONCLUSIONS

FFR-guided revascularization was associated with lower rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction and MACE compared with angiographic guidance, with RCTs and nonrandomized intervention studies yielding conflicting data. The benefits of FFR-guidance seem to be less evident in studies with high revascularization rates and with a high prevalence of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

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).

3-Year Outcomes From the Evolut Low Risk TAVR Bicuspid Study

BACKGROUND

Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis beyond 2 years are limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study.

METHODS

The Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study conducted in 25 U.S.

CENTERS

Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (all subtypes) underwent TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular Evolut R or PRO (Medtronic) bioprosthesis. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all deaths and endpoint-related adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints.

RESULTS

An attempted implant was performed in 150 patients from December 2018 to October 2019. The mean age was 70.3 ± 5.5 years, 48% (72/150) of the patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.3% (Q1-Q3: 0.9%-1.7%). Sievers type 1 was the dominant bicuspid morphology (90.7%, 136/150). The Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke were 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3%-5.3%) at 1 year, 3.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-8.1%) at 2 years, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.6%-10.7%) at 3 years. The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.4%-29.6%) at 3 years. There were no instances of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 2 and 3 years after TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year results from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study demonstrate low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and favorable hemodynamic performance.

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.

CT imaging post-TAVI: Murphy's first law in action-preparing to recognize the unexpected

Transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been long considered the standard of therapy for high-risk patients with severe aortic-stenosis and is now effectively employed in place of surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate-risk patients. The potential lasting consequences of minor complications, which might have limited impact on elderly patients, could be more noteworthy in the longer term when occurring in younger individuals. That's why a greater focus on early diagnosis, correct management, and prevention of post-procedural complications is key to achieve satisfactory results. ECG-triggered multidetector computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the mainstay imaging modality for pre-procedural planning of TAVI and is also used for post-interventional early detection of both acute and long-term complications. CTA allows detailed morphological analysis of the valve and its movement throughout the entire cardiac cycle. Moreover, stent position, coronary artery branches, and integrity of the aortic root can be precisely evaluated. Imaging reliability implies the correct technical setting of the computed tomography scan, knowledge of valve type, normal post-interventional findings, and awareness of classic and life-threatening complications after a TAVI procedure. This educational review discusses the main post-procedural complications of TAVI with a specific imaging focus, trying to clearly describe the technical aspects of CTA Imaging in post-TAVI and its clinical applications and challenges, with a final focus on future perspectives and emerging technologies. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review undertakes an analysis of the role computed tomography angiography (CTA) plays in the assessment of post-TAVI complications. Highlighting the educational issues related to the topic, empowers radiologists to refine their clinical approach, contributing to enhanced patient care. KEY POINTS: Prompt recognition of TAVI complications, ranging from value issues to death, is crucial. Adherence to recommended scanning protocols, and the optimization of tailored protocols, is essential. CTA is central in the diagnosis of TAVI complications and functions as a gatekeeper to treatment.

Readmission-related outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients aged 65 or older with bicuspid aortic valve

BACKGROUND

There continues to be debate regarding the superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We aimed to compare outcomes during readmissions in elderly patients with BAV who underwent SAVR or TAVR.

METHODS

Patients 65 years or older with BAV who underwent TAVR or isolated SAVR were identified using the National Readmission Database from 2012 through 2018. We compared outcomes during readmissions within 90 days after discharge from the index surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline differences.

RESULTS

During the study period, 8555 and 1081 elderly patients with BAV underwent SAVR and TAVR, respectively. The number of patients who underwent TAVR went up by 179 % from 2012 to 2018. Propensity score matching yielded 573 patients in each group. A total of 111 (19.4 %) in the SAVR group and 125 (21.8 %) in the TAVR group were readmitted within 90 days after the index surgery (p = .31). The mortality during the readmissions within 90 days was equivalent between the two groups (0.9 % in the SAVR group vs. 3.2 % in the TAVR group, p = .22). However, the median hospital cost was approximately doubled in the TAVR group during the readmission (18,250 dollars vs. 9310 dollars in the SAVR group, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission within 90 days was common in both groups. While the mortality during the readmissions after the surgery was equivalent between the two groups, hospital cost was significantly more expensive in the TAVR group.

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.

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.

Aortic annulus rupture after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: successful management of a dangerous complication

OBJECTIVE

Aortic annulus rupture remains one of the most fatal complications of TAVR. While attempts have been made to describe and predict this complication, the data remains insufficient without evidence-based guidelines for management of this rare complication.

METHODS

Here we describe a series of 3 aortic annulus ruptures after TAVR which were managed successfully to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Patient 1 suffered annulus rupture during balloon valvuloplasty prior to TAVR. The patient became hypotensive, and echocardiogram showed pericardial effusion. The patient underwent pericardiocentesis which transiently improved the blood pressure, but bleeding continued. The patient was transitioned to an open surgical aortic valve replacement due to ongoing hemorrhage. The chest was left open with delayed closure on post-op day 2. The patient was discharged on post-op day 15. Patient 2 was undergoing TAVR valve expansion. The patient became hypotensive. An echocardiogram revealed pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis yielded 200 mL of blood. SURGIFLO (Johnson & Johnson Wound Management, Somerville, NJ) was injected into the pericardial space. Aortic root angiography confirmed no further contrast extravasation. A pericardial drain was left in place for 2 days, and the patient was discharged on post-op day 7. Patient 3 received a TAVR valve and post-placement dilation due to paravalvular leak. The echocardiogram showed a pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis was performed, yielding 500 cc of blood. The patient's healthcare proxy declined emergent surgery; thus, a pericardial drain was placed. No hemostatic agents were used, and drainage reduced over several hours. The drain was removed on post-op day 3, and the patient was discharged on post-op day 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the timelines in these three cases, and interventions used, the following steps may be employed in the event of annulus rupture: identification of hemodynamic instability, echocardiogram to confirm pericardial effusion, emergent pericardiocentesis, pericardial drain placement for evacuation of the pericardial space and use of hemostatic agents, repeat aortogram to rule out ongoing extravasation. If hemostasis is unable to be achieved and/or the patient becomes hemodynamically unstable at any point, rapid transition to emergent surgical management is necessary. This management strategy proved successful for this case series and warrants further investigation.

Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Insights from the bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on transcatheter heart valves (THVs) durability in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis.

AIMS

To evaluate evaluating 4-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients with BAV undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

The bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry is an Italian multicentre registry including all consecutive patients with BAV and severe aortic stenosis (AS), treated by means of TAVI between January 2011 and December 2017. Outcomes of interest were all-cause death at 4-year, over time changes in echocardiographic measurements, and THV durability according to the valve aortic research consortium (VARC)-3 update definitions.

RESULTS

Study population included 109 patients (50% females; mean age 78 ± 7.5 years) with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 5.1 ± 4.3%. Median follow-up (FU) duration was 4.1 years [interquartile range: 2.8-5.1]. The overall cumulative incidence of all-cause death by Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 years was 32%. Compared to baseline, a significant decrease in transprosthetic mean gradient was obtained after TAVI (54 ± 16 vs. 10 ± 5 mmHg; p < 0.001), whereas a significant increase was observed at 4-year (13 ± 6.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of hemodynamic valve dysfunction (HVD) was 4%. Six patients met HVD criteria: three moderate and three severe HVD. All three cases of severe HVD were clinically relevant (bioprosthetic valve failure [BVF]) with two patients receiving a reintervention (TAVI in TAVI), and one patient experiencing a valve-related death due to endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

The STABILITY registry suggests that in patients with severe AS and BAV undergoing TAVI, postprocedural clinical benefits might last, over time, up to 4-year FU. The low rates of severe HVD and BVF may support the hypothesis of good THV durability also in BAV recipient.

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.

Computed tomography to guide transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Since its introduction in 2022, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with aortic stenosis. Robust clinical trial data and a wealth of scientific evidence support its efficacy and safety. One of the key factors for success of the TAVI procedure is careful preprocedural planning using imaging. Computed tomography (CT) has developed into the standard imaging method for comprehensive patient assessment in this context. Suitability of the femoral and iliac arteries for transfemoral access, exact measurement of aortic annulus size and geometry as the basis for prosthesis selection, quantification of the spatial relationship of the coronary ostia to the aortic annular plane, and identification of optimal fluoroscopic projection angles for the implantation procedure are among the most important information that can be gained from preprocedural CT. Further research is aimed at improving risk stratification, for example, with respect to annular perforation, periprosthetic aortic regurgitation, and need for postprocedural implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

A Comprehensive Review of Management Strategies for Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV): Exploring Epidemiology, Aetiology, Aortopathy, and Interventions in Light of Recent Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stands as the most prevalent congenital heart condition intricately linked to aortic pathologies encompassing aortic regurgitation (AR), aortic stenosis, aortic root dilation, and aortic dissection. The aetiology of BAV is notably intricate, involving a spectrum of genes and polymorphisms. Moreover, BAV lays the groundwork for an array of structural heart and aortic disorders, presenting varying degrees of severity. Establishing a tailored clinical approach amid this diverse range of BAV-related conditions is of utmost significance. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the epidemiology, aetiology, associated ailments, and clinical management of BAV, encompassing imaging to aortic surgery. Our exploration is guided by the perspectives of the aortic team, spanning six distinct guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted an exhaustive search across databases like PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Embase to extract relevant studies. Our review incorporates 84 references and integrates insights from six different guidelines to create a comprehensive clinical management section.

RESULTS

BAV presents complexities in its aetiology, with specific polymorphisms and gene disorders observed in groups with elevated BAV prevalence, contributing to increased susceptibility to other cardiovascular conditions. The altered hemodynamics inherent to BAV instigate adverse remodelling of the aorta and heart, thus fostering the development of epigenetically linked aortic and heart diseases. Employing TTE screening for first-degree relatives of BAV patients might be beneficial for disease tracking and enhancing clinical outcomes. While SAVR is the primary recommendation for indicated AVR in BAV, TAVR might be an option for certain patients endorsed by adept aortic teams. In addition, proficient teams can perform aortic valve repair for AR cases. Aortic surgery necessitates personalized evaluation, accounting for genetic makeup and risk factors. While the standard aortic replacement threshold stands at 55 mm, it may be tailored to 50 mm or even 45 mm based on patient-specific considerations.

CONCLUSION

This review reiterates the significance of considering the multifactorial nature of BAV as well as the need for further research to be carried out in the field.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus systems: preliminary experience in China

Background

The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) employing the second-generation retrievable VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus delivery systems with the self-expanding VenusA-Valve have not been described yet. This study aims to report the outcomes of these two second-generation delivery systems.

Methods

From January 2022 to April 2023, we prospectively enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR with VenusA-Pro from three centers across China in this first-in-man study and retrospectively identified those undergoing TAVR with VenusA-Plus. All outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definition. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 156 patients were included, of which 46 underwent TAVR with VenusA-Pro and 110 underwent TAVR with VenusA-Plus. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons median score was 2.1%, bicuspid anatomy prevalence rate was 55.1%, and the mean aortic root calcification volume was 693 mm3. The technical success rate was 91.7%, comparable between the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus groups (87.0% vs. 93.6%, P = 0.169). The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.6%, similar between the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus groups (2.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.842). No myocardial infarction occurred. The incidences of stroke (0.6%), major bleeding (3.8%), major vascular complications (5.1%), acute kidney injury (9.0%), permanent pacemaker implantation (5.1%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (5.8%), and moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (6.0%) were favorable and comparable between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were similar between the patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve, except that the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in patients with bicuspid anatomy (1.2% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

The 30-day outcomes of TAVR with VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus were favorable and comparable.

Outcomes of Cerebral Embolic Protection for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background There was limited high-quality evidence that illuminated the efficiency of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, patients with BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR with or without CEP were identified by querying the National Inpatient Sample database. The primary end point was any stroke during the hospitalization. The composite safety end point included any in-hospital death and stroke. We applied propensity score-matched analysis to minimize standardized mean differences of baseline variables and compare in-hospital outcomes. From July 2017 to December 2020, 4610 weighted hospitalizations with BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR were identified, of which 795 were treated with CEP. There was a significant increase in the CEP use rate for BAV stenosis (P-trend <0.001). A total of 795 discharges with CEP use were propensity score matched to 1590 comparable discharges but without CEP. CEP use was associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital stroke (1.3% versus 3.8%; P<0.001), which in multivariable regression was also independently associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio=0.38 [95% CI, 0.18-0.71]; P=0.005) and the safety end point (adjusted odds ratio=0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.68] P=0.001). Meanwhile, no significant difference was found in the cost of hospitalization ($46 629 versus $45 147; P=0.18) or the risk of vascular complications (1.9% versus 2.5%; P=0.41). Conclusions This observational study supported CEP use for BAV stenosis, which was independently associated with less in-hospital stroke without burdening the patients with a high hospitalization cost.

Valve-Related Complications in TAVI Leading to Emergent Cardiac Surgery

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a standard procedure for the treatment of symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in many patients. In Germany, according to the annual reports from the German Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare (Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen), the rate of serious intraprocedural complications, such as valve malpositioning or embolization, coronary obstruction, aortic dissection, annular rupture, pericardial tamponade, or severe aortic regurgitation requiring emergency cardiac surgery has decreased markedly in recent years from more than 5.5% in 2012 to 2.0% in 2019. However, with increased use, the total number of adverse events remains about 500 per year, about 100 of which require conversion to sternotomy. These, sometimes, fatal events can occur at any time and are still challenging. Therefore, the interdisciplinary TAVI heart team should be prepared and aware of possible rescue strategies.

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.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

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.

Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Treatment for Young and Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.

Mind the gap: avoiding paravalvular leak using computer simulation in bicuspid transcatheter aortic valve replacement-a case report

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide and is now more common than surgical aortic valve replacement. It is expanding into all patient subsets including younger and lower risk patients. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) accounts for a significant proportion of TAVR, but due to heterogenous anatomy, it is of increased complexity. One of the greatest challenges in BAV is the selection of the correct TAVR size. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement sizing is based upon computed tomography-derived annular measurements. There are a number of sizing algorithms for BAV based upon anatomical characteristics, often yielding different results. This is noted especially when a patient falls near the borderline between two valve sizes, an anatomical grey zone. Complementary to the algorithm approach is the use of pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation using finite-element modelling.

Case summary

An 86-year-old female was treated for heart failure secondary to severe and calcific BAV aortic stenosis with TAVR. Due to anatomical difficulty and grey-zone valve sizing, we demonstrate the use of pre-procedural patient-specific computer simulation with the novel Medtronic Evolut PRO+ platform to achieve a good result.

Discussion

Using patient-specific computer simulation, we were able to safely select the valve and the deployment height and then accurately predict the result in a difficult, severely calcified BAV. In addition to improving outcome, this allows for patient-specific, tailored discussion to occur at heart team meetings.

Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) must be better investigated.

METHODS

A meta-analysis including studies published by January 2022 reporting immediate outcomes (in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury [AKI], major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker implantation [PPI], paravalvular leakage [PVL]), mortality in the follow-up (with Kaplan-Meier curves for reconstruction of individual patient data).

RESULTS

Five studies met our eligibility criteria. No statistically significant difference was observed for in-hospital death, stroke, AKI, and PVL. TAVI was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-0.69; p = .025), but higher risk of PPI (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.05-3.77; p = .041). In the follow-up, mortality after TAVI was significantly higher in the analysis with the largest samples (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.53, p = .043), but no statistically significant difference was observed with risk-adjusted populations (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86-1.32, p = .57). Landmark analyses suggested a time-varying risk with TAVI after 10 and 13 months in both largest and risk-adjusted populations (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.45-3.12, p < .001; HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.11-2.61, p = .015, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Considering the immediate outcomes and comparable overall survival observed in risk-adjusted populations, TAVI can be used safely in selected BAV patients. However, a time-varying risk is present (favoring SAVR over TAVI at a later timepoint). This finding was likely driven by higher rates of PPI with TAVI.

Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis with and without Aortopathy: Considerations for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The treatment of aortic stenosis has evolved in recent years with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a complementary strategy to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The majority of clinical trials to date have included only tricuspid aortic stenosis and excluded bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs). BAVs are associated with unique challenges related to their anatomy, clinical presentation, and association with aortopathy. BAV has a spectrum of phenotypes and the classification is still evolving. There have been no definitive clinical guidelines on triaging BAV patients towards TAVR or SAVR. Given that TAVR is moving from high-risk to low-risk patients and becoming more widely used in the treatment of BAV, there are many factors that must be considered. The aim of this article is to review the literature and present considerations for heart teams to discuss in order to offer patients the best lifetime management strategy for BAV stenosis.

Pooled-Analysis of Association of Sievers Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology With New Permanent Pacemaker and Conduction Abnormalities After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Studies on the association of Sievers bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology with conduction disorders after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not reached consensus.

Methods

We here performed a pooled-analysis to explore whether Sievers type 1 BAV morphology increased the risk of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) compared to type 0. Systematic literature searches through EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were concluded on 1 December 2021. The primary endpoint was post-TAVR new PPI and pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Conduction abnormalities as the secondary endpoint were the composites of post-TAVR PPI and/or new-onset high-degree of atrial-ventricle node block and left-bundle branch block. Studies that reported incidence of outcomes of interest in both type 1 and type 0 BAV morphology who underwent TAVR for aortic stenosis were included.

Results

Finally, nine studies were included. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable, but type 1 population was older with a higher surgical risk score compared to type 0 BAV morphology. In the pooled-analysis type 1 BAV had significantly higher risk of post-TAVR new-onset conduction abnormalities (RR = 1.68, 95%CI 1.09–2.60, p = 0.0195) and new PPI (RR = 1.97, 95%CI 1.29–2.99, p = 0.0016) compared to type 0. Random-effects univariate meta-regression indicated that no significant association between baseline characteristics and PPI.

Conclusion

Sievers type 1 BAV morphology was associated with increased risk of post-TAVR PPI and conduction abnormalities compared to type 0. Dedicated cohort is warranted to further validate our hypothesis.

Update on supra-annular sizing of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses in raphe-type bicuspid aortic valve disease according to the LIRA method

Recent evidence has shown that transcatheter heart valve (THV) anchoring in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients occurs at the level of the raphe, known as the LIRA (Level of Implantation at the RAphe) plane. Our previous work in a cohort of 20 patients has shown that the delineation of the perimeter and device sizing at this level is associated with optimal procedural outcome. The goals of this study were to confirm the feasibility of this method, evaluate 30-day outcomes of LIRA sizing in a larger cohort of patients, assess interobserver variation and reproducibility of this sizing methodology, and analyse the interaction of LIRA-sized prostheses with the surrounding anatomy. The LIRA sizing method was applied to consecutive patients presenting to our centre with raphe-type BAV disease between November 2018 and October 2021. Supra-annular self-expanding THVs were sized based on baseline CT scan perimeters at the LIRA plane and the virtual basal ring. In cases where there was discrepancy between the two measurements, the plane with the smallest perimeter was considered the reference for prosthesis sizing. Post-procedural device success, defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria, was evaluated in the overall cohort. A total of 50 patients (mean age 80 ± 6 years, 70% male) with raphe-type BAV disease underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using different THV prostheses. The LIRA plane method appeared to be highly successful (100% VARC-2 device success) with no procedural mortality, no valve migration, no moderate-severe paravalvular leak, and low transprosthetic gradients (residual mean gradient 8.2 ± 3.4 mmHg). There were no strokes, no in-hospital or 30-day mortality, and an incidence of in-hospital pacemaker implantation of 10%. Furthermore, measurement of the LIRA plane perimeter was highly reproducible between observers (r = 0.980; P < 0.001) and predictive of the post-procedural prosthetic valve perimeter on CT scanning (r = 0.981; P < 0.001). We confirm the feasibility of supra-annular sizing using the LIRA method in a large cohort of patients with high procedural success and good clinical outcomes at 30 days. Application of the LIRA method optimizes THV prosthesis sizing in patients with raphe-type BAV disease.

Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: From Pathophysiological Mechanism, Imaging Diagnosis, to Clinical Treatment Methods

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most frequent congenital anomaly and has a natural evolution toward aortic regurgitation or stenosis due to the asymmetrical valve function associated with an evolutive ascending aortopathy. Several BAV classifications exist describing the presence and number of raphe, amount and location of calcium, and the symmetry of the functional cusps. The impact of BAV morphology on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes still remains little investigated. Pivotal randomized trials comparing TAVI with surgery have excluded BAV until yet. However, data from registries and observational studies including highly selected patients have shown promising results of TAVI in BAV. With this review, we aimed at describing anatomical and pathophysiological characteristics of BAV, discussing the main aspects to assess diagnostic imaging modalities, and giving an overview of TAVI outcomes and technical considerations specific to BAV morphology.