[Impact of bicuspid aortic valve or tricuspid aortic valve on hemodynamics and left ventricular reverse remodeling in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement]

Objective: To compare the impact of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) on hemodynamics and left ventricular reverse remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent TAVR in our hospital from January 2019 to March 2021. Patients were divided into BAV group and TAV group according to aortic contrast-enhanced CT. Each patient was followed up by N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and echocardiography at four time points, namely before TAVR, 24 hours, 1 month and 6 months after TAVR. Echocardiographic data, including mean pressure gradient (MPG), aortic valve area (AVA), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricle mass (LVM) and LV mass index (LVMi) were evaluated. Results: A total of 41 patients were included. The age was (75.0±8.6) years, and male patients accounted for 53.7%. There were 19 BAV patients and 22 TAV patients in this cohort. All patients undergoing TAVR using a self-expandable prosthesis Venus-A valve. MPG was (54.16±21.22) mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) before TAVR, (21.11±9.04) mmHg at 24 hours after TAVR, (18.84±7.37) mmHg at 1 month after TAVR, (17.68±6.04) mmHg at 6 months after TAVR in BAV group. LVEF was (50.42±13.30)% before TAVR, (53.84±10.59)% at 24 hours after TAVR, (55.68±8.71)% at 1 month after TAVR and (57.42±7.78)% at 6 months after TAVR in BAV group. MPG and LVEF substantially improved at each time point after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05) in BAV group. MPG in TAV group improved at each time point after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05). LVMi was (164.13±49.53), (156.37±39.11), (146.65±38.84) and (134.13±39.83) g/m² at the 4 time points and the value was significantly reduced at 1 and 6 months post TAVR compared to preoperative level(both P<0.05). LVEF in the TAV group remained unchanged at 24 hours after operation, but it was improved at 1 month and 6 months after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05). LVMi in TAV group substantially improved at each time point after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05). NT-proBNP in both two groups improved after operation, at 1 month and 6 months after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (all P<0.05). MPG in TAV group improved better than in BAV group during the postoperative follow-up (24 hours after TAVR: (11.68±5.09) mmHg vs. (21.11±9.04) mmHg, P<0.001, 1 month after TAVR: (10.82±3.71) mmHg vs. (18.84±7.37) mmHg, P<0.001, 6 months after TAVR: (12.36±4.42) mmHg vs. (17.68±6.04) mmHg, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in NT-proBNP between BAV group and TAV group at each time point after operation (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in paravalvular regurgitation and second prosthesis implantation between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions: AS patients with BAV or TAV experience hemodynamic improvement and obvious left ventricular reverse remodeling after TAVR, and the therapeutic effects of TAVR are similar between BAV and TAV AS patients in the short-term post TAVR.