Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in the selected patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), predominately type 1 BAV (~90%). However, there are few reports about the safety and efficacy of TAVI in type 0 BAV. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to compare procedural and 30-day outcomes after TAVI between type 0 and type 1 BAV.Methods: Studies comparing the outcomes of TAVI in Sievers type 0 vs. type 1 BAV were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 2021. The data were extracted regarding the study characteristics and outcomes. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were pooled for procedural and 30-day outcomes.Results: Six observational studies were included with determined type 0 BAV in 226 patients and type 1 BAV in 902 patients. The patients with type 0 BAV were slightly younger, had larger supra-annular structure, and more frequently implanted self-expanding prosthesis compared with type 1 BAV. In the pooled analyses, the patients with type 0 BAV had a similar incidence of procedural death (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 0.7–10.3), device success (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.3–1.3), and ≥ mild (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.4–1.6) or moderate (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.4–1.8) paravalvular leak, whereas significantly higher mean aortic gradient (mean difference = 1.4 mmHg, 95% CI 0.03–2.7) and increased coronary compromise risk (OR = 7.2; 95% CI 1.5–34.9), compared with type 1 BAV. Meanwhile, the incidence of death (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.5–3.1), stroke (OR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.1–2.4), and new pacemaker (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.2–2.2) at 30 days were not significantly different between the BAV morphologies (p > 0.05). The treatment effect heterogeneity across the studies for the above outcomes were low.Conclusions: The patients with type 0 BAV appear to have similar short-term outcomes after TAVI compared with type 1 BAV. Whereas, TAVI for type 0 BAV aortic stenosis might lead to an elevated coronary obstruction risk and suboptimal aortic valvular hemodynamics.

A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis and TAVR Results in Different Bicuspid Valve Anatomies

“…A previous meta-analysis by Du et al [67] showed similar results for what concerns the 30-day clinical endpoint between BAV subtypes such as mortality, stroke, and lifethreatening bleeding, even if fewer studies were considered in the overall analysis. Thirtyday stroke was found to be significantly higher in BAV patients undergoing TAVR with respect to patients with TAV [68]: the larger extent of calcifications and the need for preand post-dilation in BAV anatomies are advocated as being responsible for this finding.…”

Pooled-Analysis of Association of Sievers Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology With New Permanent Pacemaker and Conduction Abnormalities After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

“…Ou et al suggested type 1 BAV morphology as a strong predictor of HAVB ( 10 ). In contrast, one pooled-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the incidence of post-TAVR new PPI between type 1 and type 0 BAV morphology but the primary endpoint of that study was 30-day mortality actually, which spoiled reliability of the conclusion ( 11 ). Accordingly, we performed a pooled-analysis focusing on post-TAVR conduction abnormalities and their association with Sievers BAV morphology.…”