Bicuspid Valve Sizing for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The Missing Link

Coronary access after repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients of small body size: A simulation study

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery access after repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAV-in-TAV) is reportedly more difficult because leaflet displacement of the first transcatheter heart valve (THV) impairs coronary cannulation; however, its effects in small patients are unknown. This study aimed to simulate coronary accessibility after TAV-in-TAV in patients of small body size.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed computed tomography scans after initial THV implantation and classified patients by THV and coronary artery location, valve-to-aorta distance, and valve-to-coronary distance. Risks were compared between the SAPIEN and CoreValve/Evolut series, among THV generations, and between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in the CoreValve/Evolut series.

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients (SAPIEN series, n = 164; CoreValve/Evolut series, n = 90) were enrolled. The average body surface area of the patients was 1.44 m2. Patients were classified as "feasible" (26%), "theoretically feasible with low risk" (19.7%), "theoretically feasible with high risk" (8.7%), or "unfeasible" (45.8%). The "unfeasible" rate was significantly higher in the CoreValve/Evolut series than in the SAPIEN series (78.9% vs 26.2%; P < .001). A significantly higher "unfeasible" rate was identified in the current model of SAPIEN (SAPIEN, 8.3%; SAPIENXT, 1.8%; SAPIEN3, 48.2%; P < .001), but not in the CoreValve/Evolut series (CoreValve, 83.3%; Evolut R, 80.0%; Evolut PRO, 71.4%; P = .587). Patients with a bicuspid aortic valve had a lower "unfeasible" rate compared to those with a tricuspid aortic valve (60.0% vs 86.2%; P = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients of small body size may have a high probability of "unfeasible" coronary access after TAV-in-TAV, especially when treated with current high-frame devices, suggesting the need for careful strategic planning for initial THV implantation.

Computed tomography imaging in preprocedural planning of transcatheter valvular heart interventions

Cardiac Computed Tomography (CCT) has become a reliable imaging modality in cardiology providing robust information on the morphology and structure of the heart with high temporal and isotropic spatial resolution. For the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of valvular heart disease since previously unfavorable candidates for surgery are now provided with less-invasive interventions. Transcatheter heart valve interventions provide a real alternative to medical and surgical management and are often the only treatment option for valvular heart disease patients. Successful transcatheter valve interventions rely on comprehensive multimodality imaging assessment. CCT is the mainstay imaging technique for preprocedural planning of these interventions. CCT is critical in guiding patient selection, choice of procedural access, device selection, procedural guidance, as well as allowing postprocedural follow-up of complications. This article aims to review the current evidence of the role of CCT in the preprocedural planning of patients undergoing transcatheter valvular interventions.

Multimodality imaging for patient selection, procedural guidance, and follow-up of transcatheter interventions for structural heart disease: a consensus document of the EACVI Task Force on Interventional Cardiovascular Imaging: part 1: access routes, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and transcatheter mitral valve interventions

Transcatheter therapies for the treatment of structural heart diseases (SHD) have expanded dramatically over the last years, thanks to the developments and improvements of devices and imaging techniques, along with the increasing expertise of operators. Imaging, in particular echocardiography, is pivotal during patient selection, procedural monitoring, and follow-up. The imaging assessment of patients undergoing transcatheter interventions places demands on imagers that differ from those of the routine evaluation of patients with SHD, and there is a need for specific expertise for those working in the cath lab. In the context of the current rapid developments and growing use of SHD therapies, this document intends to update the previous consensus document and address new advancements in interventional imaging for access routes and treatment of patients with aortic stenosis and regurgitation, and mitral stenosis and regurgitation.

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.

Feasibility and safety of next-day discharge following transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement

Background

Decreased length of stay in the index hospitalization is a tendency in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) era. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients following TAVR.

Methods

The study analyzed patients who received TAVR in 2019 to 2022. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rate were compared between BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients.

Results

The proportion of NDD was similar between the BAV and TAV group (45.3 % vs 41.3 %, p = 0.487). In NDD patients, the lower age (72.0 [67.0, 77.0] yrs vs 74.0 [70.0, 80.0] yrs, p = 0.011) and STS score (2.33 [1.56, 3.54] % vs 3.82 [2.38, 5.70] %, p < 0.001) were observed in the BAV group. The NDD BAV patients had higher proportion of post-dilatation (74.3 % vs 50.7 %, p = 0.003) when compared with the TAV patients. The NDD patients was safe with no death both in BAV and TAV patients at 30-day follow-up. Moreover, the readmission rate was comparable between BAV and TAV patients who discharged on the next day after TAVR (8.1 % vs 14.0 %, p = 0.397).

Conclusions

NDD after TAVR was feasible and safe in both BAV and TAV patients. The younger BAV patients with fast recovery deserve the next-day discharge after TAVR.

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.

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.