Aortic valve replacement in patients with significant aortic regurgitation: Comparing bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve outcomes.

Surgical treatment of bicuspid aortic valve disease: Knowledge gaps and research perspectives

P3378Differences in valve morphology and aortopathy between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: a Computed Tomography Study

This study aimed to compare the incidence and prognostic implications of new-onset conduction disturbances after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortic stenosis (AS) versus patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) AS (ie, BAV-AS and TAV-AS, respectively). Additionally, the study included stratification of BAV patients according to subtype. In this cohort study, the incidence of postoperative third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block with subsequent permanent pacemaker requirement and new-onset left bundle-branch block (LBBB) was investigated in 1147 consecutive patients without preoperative conduction disorder who underwent isolated SAVR (with or without ascending aortic surgery) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2022. The groups were stratified by aortic valve morphology (BAV, n=589; TAV, n=558). The outcomes of interests were new-onset third-degree AV block or new-onset LBBB during the index hospitalization. The impact of new-onset postoperative conduction disturbances on survival was investigated in BAV-AS and TAV-AS patients during a median follow-up of 8.2 years. BAV morphology was further categorized according to the Sievers and Schmidtke classification system (possible in 307 BAV-AS patients) to explore association between BAV subtypes and new-onset conduction disturbances after SAVR. The overall incidence of third-degree AV block and new-onset LBBB after SAVR was 4.5% and 7.8%, respectively. BAV-AS patients had a higher incidence of both new-onset third-degree AV block (6.5% versus 2.5%; P=0.001) and new-onset LBBB (9.7% versus 5.7%; P=0.013) compared with TAV-AS patients. New-onset LBBB was associated with an increased all-cause mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.12-2.30]; P=0.011), whereas new-onset third-degree AV block was not associated with worse prognosis. Subgroup analysis of the BAV cohort revealed that BAV-AS patients with fusion of the right- and non-coronary cusps had the highest risk of new-onset third-degree AV block (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.33 [95% CI, 3.31-20.97]; P<0.001, with TAV as reference group) and new-onset LBBB (aOR, 4.03 [95% CI, 1.84-8.82]; P<0.001, with TAV as reference group), whereas no significant association was observed for the other BAV subtypes. New-onset LBBB after SAVR is associated with increased all-cause mortality during follow-up, and is more frequent complication in BAV AS patients compared with TAV-AS patients. BAV-AS patients with fusion of the right- and non-coronary cusps have an increased risk for conduction disturbances after SAVR. This should be taken into consideration when managing these patients.

The aortic arch and its branches form during the third week of embryogenesis, which involves a complex process. Abnormalities of the arch branching pattern arise by persistence of segments of arches that normally disappear or the disappearance of segments of arches that normally remain, or both [1]. The most common human aortic arch branching pattern has the innominate artery, the left common carotid artery and the left subclavian artery all as separate branches (Fig. 1). The most common variant branching pattern involves the left common carotid artery arising in a common origin with the innominate artery (Fig. 2), and the next most common the similar left common carotid artery originating from the innominate artery itself (Fig. 3). A true bovine arch involves a single common brachiocephalic trunk arising from the arch which then splits into the right subclavian artery, a bicarotid trunk and a left subclavian artery (Fig. 4), and is actually extremely uncommon in humans [2]. Originally the variations of t...

BackgroundThere is a lack of available data on specific prognostic comparisons between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with stenotic Type 0, Type 1 bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).ObjectivesTo evaluate the association between aortic valve morphology and outcomes following self-expandable TAVR.MethodsConsecutive patients with aortic stenosis(AS) undergoing self-expandable TAVR were enrolled and categorized into three groups (Type 0/Type 1 BAV or TAV) according to the Sievers classification. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) within 2 years. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications and major cardiovascular events observed in clinical follow-ups. Clinical outcomes at 2 years following TAVR were compared among three groups using Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.ResultsA total of 344 AS patients (Type 0: 86; Type 1: 109; TAV: 149) were enrolled. The presence of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (PVL) was significantly higher in patients with Type 0 and Type 1 BAV versus TAV (10.47% vs. 16.51% vs. 6.71%, p = 0.043). All-cause 30-day mortality (2.33% vs. 0.92% vs. 2.68%, p = 0.626) and 2-year mortality (3.49% vs. 5.50% vs. 6.71%, p = 0.657) was comparable among the three groups. However, rehospitalization for HF within 2 years was significantly higher in Type 1 BAV (11.63% vs. 20.18% vs. 8.72%, p = 0.020). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that a higher STS score, Type 1 BAV morphology and excess leaflet calcification (≥ median calcium volume (CV) of the entire population) were independent predictors for HF rehospitalization. Additional intragroup Kaplan‒Meier analysis showed that excess leaflet calcification could predict higher long-term mortality and rehospitalization risk for HF(HR (95% CI): 3.430 (1.166–10.090), log rank p = 0.017) in Type 1 BAV patients.ConclusionOutcomes of self-expandable TAVR in BAV-AS patients might vary depending on valve subtypes. BAV patients with excess leaflet calcification and a raphe, especially calcified, had an increased risk of moderate PVL and HF readmission in mid-to-long term follow-ups.

Commentary: Stentless valve for bicuspid aortic valve replacement: Some answers just lead to more questions

The Elephant in the Room: Bicuspid Aortic Valvulopathy

Morphology and Function of the Bicuspid Aortic Valve With and Without Coarctation of the Aorta in the Young

Comparative utility of echocardiographic parameters for quantifying aortic insufficiency severity in bicuspid and trileaflet aortic valves

Commentary: Standardized aortic valve repair in pediatric patients

Effect of aneurysm on the mechanical dissection properties of the human ascending thoracic aorta

BACKROUND: The influence of the morphology of aortic valve on the natural history of aortic regurgitation (AR) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of AR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) comparing with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with asymptomatic severe chronic AR were prospectively studied. Follow-up period was 7+/- 2 years. Forty-one patients (42%) had BAV and were significantly younger than patients with TAV (39 +/- 11 vs 47 +/- 14 years, p=0.001). Mean ascending aortic diameter (AAD) was significantly larger in BAV (42 +/- 7 vs 37 +/- 5 mm, p=0.0001). Differences in AAD persisted until the end of the follow-up (47 +/- 6 vs 40 +/-5 mm, p=0.0001). The percentatge of increase in AAD was 12 +/- 5% in BAV and 8 +/- 5% in TAV with yearly increase of 0.83 mm in BAV and 0.42 mm in TAV. The changes in left ventricle diameters, mass index, wall stress, regurgitant fraction and ejection fraction were similar in BAV and TAV. Patients with BAV did not need surgery earlier due to AR than patients with TAV (4.7 +/- 2 vs 4.8 +/- 3 years). At 5 years follow-up 11 patients with BAV (27%) and 10 patients with TAV (23%) needed surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BAV are younger, had a larger AAD and a higher rate of AAD enlargement than patients with TAV. The morphology of the aortic valve (BAV vs TAV) had no infuence in the progression of AR and the impact on left ventricular function.

Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal evaluations of transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) devices. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AV stenosis in comparison with those with tricuspid AV stenosis. We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (November 2011 through November 2018) to determine device success, procedural outcomes, post-TAVR valve performance, and in-hospital clinical outcomes (mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) according to valve morphology (bicuspid versus tricuspid). Results were stratified by older and current (Sapien 3 and Evolut R) generation valve prostheses. Medicare administrative claims were used to evaluate mortality and stroke to 1 year among eligible individuals (≥65 years). After exclusions, there were 170 959 eligible procedures at 593 sites during the specified interval. Of these, 5412 TAVR procedures (3.2%) were performed in patients with bicuspid AV, including 3705 with current-generation devices. In comparison with patients with tricuspid valves, patients with bicuspid AV were younger and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality score. When current-generation devices were used to treat patients with bicuspid AV, device success increased (93.5 versus 96.3; P=0.001) and the incidence of 2+ aortic insufficiency declined (14.0% versus 2.7%; P<0.001) in comparison with older-generation devices. With current-generation devices, device success was slightly lower in the bicuspid (versus tricuspid) AV group (96.3% in bicuspid versus 97.4% in tricuspid, P=0.07), with a slightly higher incidence of residual moderate or severe aortic insufficiency among patients with bicuspid AV (2.7% versus 2.1%; P<0.001). A lower 1-year adjusted risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]) was observed for patients with bicuspid AV versus patients with tricuspid AV in the Medicare-linked cohort, whereas no difference was observed in the 1-year adjusted risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94-1.39]). Using current-generation devices, procedural, postprocedural, and 1-year outcomes were comparable following TAVR for bicuspid AV versus tricuspid AV disease. With newer-generation devices, TAVR is a viable treatment option for patients with bicuspid AV disease.

The appropriate timing of aortic repair in patients with bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy remains controversial. We describe the changes in diameter of the non-aneurysmal ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement for bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. This retrospective review included 189 patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement for severe stenotic aortic valve with a non-aneurysmal ascending aorta diameter of 45mm or less between January 2008 and December 2018. A linear mixed-effect model was used to analyze and compare the enlargement rates of the non-aneurysmal ascending aorta at the tubular portion after aortic valve replacement in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve patients. The enlargement rate of the non-aneurysmal ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement was significantly greater in the bicuspid aortic valve group than in the tricuspid aortic valve group (0.36mm/year vs. 0.09mm/year, p < 0.001). The specific form of bicuspid aortic valve also affected aorta diameter enlargement: the enlargement rate of 0.85mm/year in the Type 0 (according to Sievers' classification) group was approximately five times that in the Non-Type 0 group (p < 0.001). No aortic events were observed, and no patients needed reoperations for the ascending aorta, in either the bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valve groups. The persistent possibility of progressive ascending aortic dilatation after aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, especially in Type 0 bicuspid aortic valve patients, demands careful post-procedural evaluation of the ascending aorta.

Inter-ethnic differences in valve morphology, valvular dysfunction, and aortopathy between Asian and European patients with bicuspid aortic valve.