Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Outcomes Compared Between Bicuspid Aortic and Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author Type(s)

Faculty

Document Type

Abstract

Publication Date

10-2021

DOI

10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.2225

Journal Title

European Heart Journal

Department

Medicine

Abstract

Background

TAVI has emerged as an attractive treatment modality based on promising recent trial data. Patients with BAV, a commonly encountered clinical condition have largely been excluded from a majority of trials.

Purpose

Elderly patients with BAV and severe AS are increasingly encountered in clinical practice. This meta-analysis compares clinical outcomes between bicuspid and tricuspid AV patients to address the current knowledge-gap and identify optimal management strategies of these patients.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane to identify the available observational studies comparing outcomes of TAVI in BAV and TAV patients. Summary effects were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model as odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals for all the clinical endpoints.

Results

16 Observational studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 10,053 patients with BAV and 173,307 patients with TAV that underwent TAVI. No significant differences in 30-day and long-term mortality rates were observed. Patients with BAV had an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.23; 95% CI [1.06–1.44], p=0.007), re-intervention (OR 1.90; 95% CI [1.15–3.15], p=0.01), paravalvular leak (OR 1.42; 95% CI [1.25–1.61], pConclusions

Complication rates for BAV TAVI are higher, but mortality is similar to TAV TAVI indicating TAVI is an appropriate alternative for intermediate-high risk patients with BAV. A better understanding of valve anatomy, physician expertise, the use of newer-generation valves can help reduce these complications.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS