Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve

Objectives To compare the outcomes after surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe stenosis of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). Methods We evaluated the early and mid-term outcome of patients with stenotic BAV who underwent SAVR or TAVR for aortic stenosis from the nationwide FinnValve registry. Results The FinnValve registry included 6463 AS patients and 1023 (15.8%) of them had BAV. SAVR was performed in 920 patients and TAVR in 103 patients with BAV. In the overall series, device success after TAVR was comparable to SAVR (94.2% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.115). TAVR was associated with increased rate of mild-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (19.4% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.0001) and of moderate-to-severe PVR (2.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.053). When newer-generation TAVR devices were evaluated, mild-to-severe PVR (11.9% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.223) and moderate-to-severe PVR (0% vs. 0.7%, p = 1.000) were comparable to SAVR. Type 1 N-L and type 2 L-R/R-N were the BAV morphologies with higher incidence of mild-to-severe PVR (37.5% and 100%, adjusted for new-generation prostheses p = 0.025) compared to other types of BAVs. Among 75 propensity score-matched cohorts, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 5.3% after SAVR (p = 0.375), and 2-year mortality was 9.7% after TAVR and 18.7% after SAVR (p = 0.268) Conclusions In patients with stenotic BAV, TAVR seems to achieve early and mid-term results comparable to SAVR. Type 1 N-L and type 2 L-R/R-N BAV morphologies had higher incidence of PVR. Larger studies evaluating different phenotypes of BAV are needed to confirm these findings. [GRAPHICS] .

Automated summary

This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe stenosis of bicuspid aortic valve. The results showed that TAVR achieved similar early and mid-term outcomes compared to SAVR.