Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: A Systematic Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is effective and safe, but its outcomes for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease are relatively unclear. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar till November 2023 yielded studies evaluating TAVI in BAV patients. Inclusion criteria were applied, and data were extracted on clinical and procedural outcomes, including echocardiographic measures and complications. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis. From the 29 studies covering 8045 BAV patients, the mean age was found to be 72.5 ± 10.35 years with a male predominance of 56.4% ± 7.9%. TAVI was significantly beneficial, decreasing the mean aortic gradient from 46.9 to 10.4 mm Hg postprocedure and increasing aortic valve area, evidencing improved hemodynamics. A high procedural success rate of 93.3% was noted, predominantly through femoral access. However, complications included pacemaker need (12.6%), minor bleeding, and acute kidney injury. All-cause mortality escalated from 3.7% perioperatively to 16.8% after 1 year. Hazard ratios and P values highlighted significant outcomes: perioperative hazard ratio for mortality at 3.7% (P < 0.05), reduction in perioperative versus postoperative gradients (P < 0.001), and increase in postoperative aortic valve area (P < 0.001). The need for postdilatation was less than predilatation (P < 0.05), and significant differences were noted in device sizes (P < 0.05). TAVI in BAV patients showed good perioperative outcomes but with moderate complication rates. Notably, there was a significant rise in 1-year mortality, underscoring the importance of careful patient selection and strict postoperative care. More studies are necessary to determine long-term results and refine procedures for this group.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgical replacement for tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis. However, utilization of TAVI for aortic stenosis in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) compared to TAV remains controversial.

METHODS

We queried online databases with various keywords to identify relevant articles. We compared major cardiovascular events and procedural outcomes using a random effect model to calculate odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

We included a total of 22 studies comprising 189,693 patients (BAV 12,669 vs. TAV 177,024). In the pooled analysis, there were no difference in TAVI for BAV vs. TAV for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), vascular complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), coronary occlusion, annulus rupture, and reintervention/reoperation between the groups. The incidence of stroke (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.1-1.39), paravalvular leak (PVLR) (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.61), and the need for pacemaker (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) was less in the TAV group compared to the BAV group, while incidence of life-threatening bleeding was higher in the TAV group. Subgroup analysis mirrored pooled outcomes except for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

The use of TAVI for the treatment of aortic stenosis in selective BAV appears to be safe and effective.

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.

Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Stenotic Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve

Most of the trials investigating the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) across various strata of risk categories have excluded patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS) due to its anatomical complexities. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis with meta-regression of studies comparing clinical, procedural, and after-procedural echocardiographic outcomes in BAS versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (TAS) patients who underwent TAVI. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for relevant articles from the inception of the database to October 2019. Continuous and categorical variables were pooled using inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively, using the random-effect model. To rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome, we used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. Nineteen articles were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the risk of 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, major and/or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, acute kidney injury, permanent pacemaker implantation, device success, annular rupture, after-procedural aortic valve area, and mean pressure gradient between the 2 groups. BAS patients who underwent TAVI had a higher risk of 30-day stroke, conversion to surgery, need for second valve implantation, and moderate to severe paravalvular leak. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis supports the feasibility of TAVI in surgically ineligible patients with BAS. However, the incidence of certain procedural complications such as stroke, conversion to surgery, second valve implantation, and paravalvular leak is higher among BAS patients compared with TAS patients, which must be discussed with the patient during the decision-making process.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

After 15 years of successive randomized, controlled trials, indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are rapidly expanding. In the coming years, this procedure could become the first line treatment for patients with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a tricuspid aortic valve anatomy. However, randomized, controlled trials have excluded bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which is the most frequent congenital heart disease occurring in 1% to 2% of the total population and representing at least 25% of patients 80 years of age or older referred for aortic valve replacement. The use of a less invasive transcatheter therapy in this elderly population became rapidly attractive, and approximately 10% of patients currently undergoing TAVR have a BAV. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the "European Conformity" have approved TAVR for low-risk patients regardless of the aortic valve anatomy whereas international guidelines recommend surgical replacement in BAV populations. Given this progressive expansion of TAVR toward younger and lower-risk patients, heart teams are encountering BAV patients more frequently, while the ability of this therapy to treat such a challenging anatomy remains uncertain. This review will address the singularity of BAV anatomy and associated technical challenges for the TAVR procedure. We will examine and summarize available clinical evidence and highlight critical knowledge gaps regarding TAVR utilization in BAV patients. We will provide a comprehensive overview of the role of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis, and classification of BAV and TAVR procedure planning. Overall, we will offer an integrated framework for understanding the current role of TAVR in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis and for guiding physicians in clinical decision-making.

Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and aortic valvular outflow jets: an experimental analysis using an MRI-compatible pulsatile flow circulation system

The characteristics of aortic valvular outflow jet affect aortopathy in the bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). This study aimed to elucidate the effects of BAV morphology on the aortic valvular outflow jets. Morphotype-specific valve-devising apparatuses were developed to create aortic valve models. A magnetic resonance imaging-compatible pulsatile flow circulation system was developed to quantify the outflow jet. The eccentricity and circulation values of the peak systolic jet were compared among tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), three asymmetric BAVs, and two symmetric BAVs. The results showed mean aortic flow and leakage did not differ among the five BAVs (six samples, each). Asymmetric BAVs demonstrated the eccentric outflow jets directed to the aortic wall facing the smaller leaflets. In the asymmetric BAV with the smaller leaflet facing the right-anterior, left-posterior, and left-anterior quadrants of the aorta, the outflow jets exclusively impinged on the outer curvature of the ascending aorta, proximal arch, and the supra-valvular aortic wall, respectively. Symmetric BAVs demonstrated mildly eccentric outflow jets that did not impinge on the aortic wall. The circulation values at peak systole increased in asymmetric BAVs. The bicuspid symmetry and the position of smaller leaflet were determinant factors of the characteristics of aortic valvular outflow jet.

Update on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive approach to treat symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The patient populations that have been shown to benefit from this procedure continue to grow with time. Techniques and technology in TAVR persistently advance with a continued trend toward improved outcomes for patients. In this review, we highlight the advances in vascular access, TAVR valve design, progress in reducing procedural complications, and emerging evidence in the field.

Biomechanical modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a stenotic bicuspid aortic valve: deployments and paravalvular leakage

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is characterized by stiffened aortic valve leaflets. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart disease. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment approach for CAVD where a stent with mounted bioprosthetic valve is deployed on the stenotic valve. Performing TAVR in calcified BAV patients may be associated with post-procedural complications due to the BAV asymmetrical structure. This study aims to develop refined computational models simulating the deployments of Evolut R and PRO TAVR devices in a representative calcified BAV. The paravalvular leakage (PVL) was also calculated by computational fluid dynamics simulations. Computed tomography scan of severely stenotic BAV patient was acquired. The 3D calcium deposits were generated and embedded inside a parametric model of the BAV. Deployments of the Evolut R and PRO inside the calcified BAV were simulated in five bioprosthesis leaflet orientations. The hypothesis of asymmetric and elliptic stent deployment was confirmed. Positioning the bioprosthesis commissures aligned with the native commissures yielded the lowest PVL (15.7 vs. 29.5 mL/beat). The Evolut PRO reduced the PVL in half compared with the Evolut R (15.7 vs. 28.7 mL/beat). The proposed biomechanical computational model could optimize future TAVR treatment in BAV patients. Graphical abstract.