Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Due to abnormal valve geometry, patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) have been excluded in many transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials resulting in very limited data with regards to its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies including case series, and original reports published before December 2018 that assessed outcomes following TAVR in BAV stenosis. We also included studies that had patients with TAV for comparison. Pooled effect size was calculated with a random-effect model and weighted for the inverse of variance, to compare outcomes post-TAVR between BAV and TAV. The heterogeneity of effect estimates across the studies was assessed using I2. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp., SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY.).

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies describing 1,332 patients with BAV and 3,610 with TAV. There was no significant difference in the30-day mortality between patients with BAV and TAV [odds ratio (OR): 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7-1.7, P=0.41, I=0]. One-year mortality rate in the BAV population was 13.1% compared to 15.4% in the TAV patients (P=0.75). Patients with BAV had significantly more moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) post TAVR (PVL ≥3) 8.8% 4.2% in TAV patients (OR: 1.478, 95% CI: 1.000-2.184, P=0.050, I=0. Device success was significantly higher in TAV patients compared to BAV patients 93.5% 87% (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.86, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR in patients with BAV is associated with a high incidence of paravalvular regurgitation with a comparable 30-day mortality rate to TAV patients. The use of newer generation valve prosthesis improved outcomes.