Supra-Annular Sizing for Prediction of THV Expansion in Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A MSCT Study

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.

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.