Search

Studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR) for patients with trileaflet aortic stenosis (AS) have found similar or larger effective orifice area (EOA) for TAVR prostheses. To our knowledge, no studies have compared EOA in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS. We retrospectively compared prosthetic valvular sizing and predicted EOA for patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR at our institution between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. We excluded patients undergoing procedures for indications other than AS and those without a pre-procedural gated Chest CT. Comparisons included demographics, comorbidities, annular size, prosthetic valve size, predicted EOA and prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) for TAVR (N = 78) and SAVR (N = 74) cohorts. TAVR patients had smaller pre-procedural annular area (501.7 mm2 vs. 571.8 mm2, p < 0.05) and annular perimeter (80.6 mm vs. 86.5 mm, p < 0.05), but larger mean implanted prosthetic valve size (26.4 mm vs 24.2 mm, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR patients. No differences were observed in predicted EOA, predicted EOA indexed to patient body surface area (EOAi), or predicted PPM grade between TAVR and SAVR groups, including in cohorts sorted by pre-procedural annular size. For bicuspid AS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR. These data support the use of TAVR in selected patients with bicuspid AS and can inform heart team discussions. • TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR for patients with bicuspid AS. • Across annular sizes in bicuspid AS, TAVR and SAVR attain similar prosthesis size. • Rates of predicted PPM are not different for TAVR versus SAVR in bicuspid AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis patients who are at low surgical risk. Methods: Participants were enrolled from 36 centers in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality and all stroke at 30 days. Results: Among 389 patients at low surgical risk that underwent TAVR, 229 patients were BAV stenosis (mean age, 72.9 years; 65.1% men). There was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause death between two populations at 30 days. However, the rate of all stroke was significantly higher in the BAV group at 30 days (3.3% vs. 0%; odds ratio (OR), 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94 to 0.99); p = 0.044). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate at 30 days (OR, 29.20 (95% CI, 3.97 to 215.1); p = 0.001). Conclusions: In this national registry-based study, patients treated for BAV vs. TAV stenosis had no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, but trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate after TAVR at 30 days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative data of the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-3)-defined technical success between bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) remain lacking. Aims: We sought to compare the technical success and other clinical outcomes between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: A registration-based analysis was performed for 402 patients (211 and 191 cases of bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively). The primary outcome was VARC-3-defined technical success. Additional analysis was performed to assess outcomes for up to one year between the two groups. Results: Bicuspid AS patients tended to be younger (74 years vs. 77 years; p < 0.001) with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (4.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.003). Bicuspid AS patients showed a lower prevalence of hypertension and peripheral vascular diseases. Technical failure was encountered in 17.7% of these patients, driven primarily by the high incidence of second valve implantation. The technical success rates were comparable between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups (82.5% vs. 82.2%, p = 0.944). Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and larger sinotubular junctional diameter (STJ) were identified as predictors of technical failure, whereas CKD, impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), along with larger STJ, were predictors of cardiac technical failure. Technical failure was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year, as evidenced by the Cox multivariable analysis. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in the technical success rates and most clinical outcomes between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups. Technical failure conferred an increased risk for both 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundIn this study, we investigate the utility of geometric orifice area (GOA) on cardiac computed tomography (CT) and differences from effective orifice area (EOA) on Doppler echocardiography in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA total of 163 patients (age 64 ± 10 years, 56.4% men) with symptomatic bicuspid AS who were referred for surgery and underwent both cardiac CT and echocardiography within 3 months were studied. To calculate the aortic valve area, GOACT was measured by multiplanar CT planimetry, and EOAEcho was calculated by the continuity equation with Doppler echocardiography. The relationships between GOACT and EOAEcho and patient symptom scale, biomarkers, and left ventricular (LV) functional variables were analyzed.ResultsThere was a significant but modest correlation between EOAEcho and GOACT (r = 0.604, p < 0.001). Both EOAEcho and GOACT revealed significant correlations with mean pressure gradient and peak transaortic velocity, and the coefficients were higher in EOAEcho than in GOACT. EOAEcho of 1.05 cm2 and GOACT of 1.25 cm2 corresponds to hemodynamic cutoff values for diagnosing severe AS. EOAEcho was well correlated with the patient symptom scale and log NT-pro BNP, but GOACT was not. In addition, EOAEcho had a higher correlation coefficient with estimated LV filling pressure and LV global longitudinal strain than GOACT.ConclusionGOACT can be used to evaluate the severity of bicuspid AS. The threshold for GOACT for diagnosing severe AS should be higher than that for EOAEcho. However, EOAEcho is still the method of choice because EOAEcho showed better correlations with clinical and functional variables than GOACT.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is challenging in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) anatomy. The patients are young, morphological phenotypes are many, calcium burden is high and there are technical challenges for best outcomes. Observational studies and registries are available with favorable data and experiences from around the world sharing methodologies and algorithms for sizing and implantation. We, therefore, analysed our data of procedural and in-hospital outcomes of TAVI in Bicuspid Aortic Valve cases performed at two high volume centres in India and their follow up for two years.Methods and ResultsThe data were collated and analysed from two centres (Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi and Apollo Hospitals, Chennai) in India for patients who underwent TAVI in a BAV anatomy. It included a total of 70 cases from 2 centres. All symptomatic severe AS patients more than and equal to 65 years having bicuspid anatomy were included in the study irrespective of their STS score. Patients under 65 years of age were advised TAVI only if they were at high risk for open heart surgery. These patients were followed for a period of 2 years and the data were analysed. Pre TAVI imaging tools utilised were 2D echo, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), trans oesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and ECG gated multi slice CT (MSCT) scan imaging. MSCT was utilised for confirmation of the anatomy and classifying the morphological type of valve, measuring, and evaluating all anatomic determinants of aortic root complex for planning the procedure and choice of the valve and its size. Sizing in balloon expanding valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve sizing (SEV) were based primarily on annulus area and perimeter, respectively. The SEV used in our study were the Core Valve and Evolut R (Medtronic, United States) and the BEVs included Sapien3 (Edwards Lifesciences, United States) and Myval (Meril Lifesciences, India). The BAV cohort constituted 24.4% of the total 287 TAVI cases, followed up for 2 years. The mean age of these patients was 72 years. The incidence of male patients was 68.57% and female patients was 31.4%. The Sievers type 1 included 78.5%, type 0 were 21.4% of the cases and there was no case of type 2 in the study. The procedural success was to the tune of 98%. Patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved their symptoms class after TAVI and remained so at 2 years follow up. The poor LVEF subset of patients did not have heart failure admissions and also had improvement in their symptom status. The peak-to-peak aortic valve gradient decreased to 0 mmHg at the end of the procedure in most of the cases. The mean pressure gradient (PG) across the new valve ranged between 0 and 15 mmHg and the aortic valve area (AVA) was close to 2 cm2. These numbers were consistent at 2 years follow up. Significant paravalvular leak (PVL) 24.28% was seen immediately after deployment of the valve in heavily calcified anatomy but it reduced to mild or trivial PVL after post-dilation and one patient needed a second valve to treat PVL. No patient had more than mild PVL with either type of valve at the end of the procedure. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was required in 11.4% of the patients within 24 h to 7 days of the procedure. No one needed a PPI in the 2 year follow up. Coronary occlusion did not happen to any patient. No patient had a disabling stroke. Non-disabling stroke was seen in 10% of cases and mostly in the first week or 30 days of the procedure and the incidence was more with BEV (14%) as compared to SEV (8%). There was one case of valve embolisation after 24 h of the procedure, which needed a surgical valve replacement. There was no case of annular injury or injury to other parts of the aortic root complex. Two cases had access vessel (femoral artery) thrombosis at end of the procedure and a third patient had proglide related residual stenosis. Two cases had acute kidney injury and needed dialysis. There was no major bleeding complication in any patient. Peri procedural mortality occurred in two patients. Valve thrombosis was seen in one patient after 3 months, which was treated with oral anticoagulation. Valve degeneration and failure or infective endocarditis were not seen in any patient.ConclusionThe patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI in this study had good procedural success rates and clinical outcomes. The haemodynamics achieved with both SEV and BEV were good at 2 years. The rates of PVL, PPI, and stroke are similar to that of many other studies and registries. PPI rate and non-disabling stroke incidence appear to be higher similar to many studies done. There was no case of coronary occlusion in the study. Meticulous CT analysis of the aortic root complex, selection of appropriate type and size of the valve, and best implantation practices along with cerebral protection will probably be the key to safer and more successful TAVI in this population.

Background: Most pivotal transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials have excluded patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS). This study compared TAVR in low-risk patients with bicuspid AS to those with tricuspid AS, incorporating data from prospective trials.Methods: We selected prospective US low-risk TAVR trials containing a bicuspid arm for this meta-analysis, examining outcomes at 30 days. Study results were pooled using a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model.Results: Included were 3 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trials that enrolled a total of 1810 low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS for TAVR. We compared 380 bicuspid patients with 1430 tricuspid patients. Event rates at 30 days overall were low, with similar mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.08, 1.78; I2, 0%), non-disabling stroke (OR, 0.45; 95% CrI: 0.15, 1.07; I2, 9%), and permanent pacemaker implantation (OR, 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.41, 1.47; I2, 59%). There were statistically significant differences in disabling stroke (OR, 0.16; 95% CrI: 0.01, 0.90; I2, NA) and coronary obstruction (OR, 0.21; 95% CrI: 0.05, 0.91) that disappeared after sensitivity analysis by adding a single event to the tricuspid arm. Hemodynamics were similar at 30 days.Conclusions: Preliminary data from the FDA-approved IDE trials of low-risk patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR demonstrated 30-day outcomes comparable to low-risk tricuspid patients, except for a trend toward higher stroke in bicuspid patients. Randomized trials are warranted to reassure the safety and long-term outcome of TAVR in patients with severe bicuspid AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the predictors of new-onset conduction disturbances in bicuspid aortic valve patients using self-expanding valve and identify modifiable technical factors.Background: New-onset conduction disturbances (NOCDs), including complete left bundle branch block and high-grade atrioventricular block, remain the most common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).Methods: A total of 209 consecutive bicuspid patients who underwent self-expanding TAVR in 5 centers in China were enrolled from February 2016 to September 2020. The optimal cut-offs in this study were generated from receiver operator characteristic curve analyses. The infra-annular and coronal membranous septum (MS) length was measured in preoperative computed tomography. MSID was calculated by subtracting implantation depth measure on postoperative computed tomography from infra-annular MS or coronal MS length.Results: Forty-two (20.1%) patients developed complete left bundle branch block and 21 (10.0%) patients developed high-grade atrioventricular block after TAVR, while 61 (29.2%) patients developed NOCDs. Coronal MS 73 years (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.17–4.36, p = 0.015), Δcoronal MSID 3.2% (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 1.74–6.72, p < 0.001) showed best predictive value of NOCDs, with c-statistic = 0.768 (95% CI: 0.699–0.837, p < 0.001). The incidence of NOCDs was much lower (7.5 vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001) in patients without Δcoronal MSID 3.2% compared with patients who had these two risk factors.Conclusion: The risk of NOCDs in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients could be evaluated based on MS length and prosthesis oversizing ratio. Implantation depth guided by MS length and reducing the oversizing ratio might be a feasible strategy for heavily calcified bicuspid patients with short MS.

Distinct anatomical features predispose bicuspid AS patients to conduction disturbances after TAVR. This study sought to evaluate whether the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is related to an anatomical association between bicuspid AS and short membranous septal (MS) length. Sixty-seven consecutive patients with bicuspid AS from a Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry and 67 propensity-matched patients with tricuspid AS underwent computed tomography before TAVR. MS length was significantly shorter in bicuspid AS compared with tricuspid AS (6.2 ± 2.5 mm vs. 8.4 ± 2.7 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In patients with bicuspid AS, MS length and aortic valve calcification were the most powerful pre-procedural independent predictors of PPMI or LBBB (odds ratio [OR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 1.55, p = 0.003 and OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.34, p = 0.022, respectively). When taking into account pre- and post-procedural parameters, aortic valve calcification and the difference between MS length and implantation depth were the most powerful independent predictors of PPMI or LBBB in patients with bicuspid AS (OR: 1.82, 95%: 1.1 to 3.1, p = 0.027; OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.38, p = 0.003). MS length, which was significantly shorter in bicuspid AS compared with tricuspid AS, aortic valve calcification, and device implantation deeper than MS length predict PPMI or LBBB in bicuspid AS after TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limited date describing the procedural, clinical and valve performance results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (TAV). Methods Procedural and clinical results were defined and reported according to VARC-2 criteria. Results Consecutive 87 patients with BAV and 70 patients with TAV were included. Compared to patients with TAV, patients with BAV had similar incidence of second valve implantation (14.9% vs 12.9%, p = 0.708), more than mild paravalvular leakage (PVL, 40.2% vs 31.9%, p = 0.288), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM, 24.1% vs 28.6%, p = 0.53). Furthermore, the procedural and clinical results of TAVR also did not differ between patients with type 0 and type 1 (second valve implantation: 18.4% vs 11.8%, p = 0.71, PVL: 38.8% vs 41.2%, p = 0.83, PPM: 18.4% vs 31.6%, p = 0.16). The hemodynamic outcomes were similar in patients with BAV and TAV at 1-year (maximum velocity, 2.3 vs 2.2 m/s, p = 0.307) and 2-year (2.3 vs 2.1 m/s, p = 0.184) follow-up respectively. Adjusted binary logistic regression analysis found oversizing ratio at 14.45–20.57% is at lower risk for more than mild PVL (OR, 0.069, 95% CI, 0.011–0.428, p = 0.004). Moreover, the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that TAVR in type 0 BAV, type 1 BAV and TAV have comparable risk for midterm mortality (Log rank, p = 0.772). Conclusion TAVR in whatever type of BAV appeared to be safe and efficacy, and TAVR in BAV was associated with comparable bioprosthetic function during follow up compared to patients with TAV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this study, we investigate the utility of geometric orifice area (GOA) on cardiac computed tomography (CT) and differences from effective orifice area (EOA) on Doppler echocardiography in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS)., Methods: A total of 163 patients (age 64 ± 10 years, 56.4% men) with symptomatic bicuspid AS who were referred for surgery and underwent both cardiac CT and echocardiography within 3 months were studied. To calculate the aortic valve area, GOA CT was measured by multiplanar CT planimetry, and EOA Echo was calculated by the continuity equation with Doppler echocardiography. The relationships between GOA CT and EOA Echo and patient symptom scale, biomarkers, and left ventricular (LV) functional variables were analyzed., Results: There was a significant but modest correlation between EOA Echo and GOA CT ( r = 0.604, p < 0.001). Both EOA Echo and GOA CT revealed significant correlations with mean pressure gradient and peak transaortic velocity, and the coefficients were higher in EOA Echo than in GOA CT . EOA Echo of 1.05 cm 2 and GOA CT of 1.25 cm 2 corresponds to hemodynamic cutoff values for diagnosing severe AS. EOA Echo was well correlated with the patient symptom scale and log NT-pro BNP, but GOA CT was not. In addition, EOA Echo had a higher correlation coefficient with estimated LV filling pressure and LV global longitudinal strain than GOA CT ., Conclusion: GOA CT can be used to evaluate the severity of bicuspid AS. The threshold for GOA CT for diagnosing severe AS should be higher than that for EOA Echo . However, EOA Echo is still the method of choice because EOA Echo showed better correlations with clinical and functional variables than GOA CT ., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Kim, Lee, Seo, Suh, Cho, Hong, Ha, Kim and Shim.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an accepted indication for non-operable patients with severe symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis (AS) and as a reasonable alternative for high-risk surgical AS patients. Nonetheless, the safety and efficacy of performing TAVR in several other potential indications are yet unclear. In the present manuscript the authors review the current evidence supporting TAVR for other potential indications than the typical high-risk/non-operable AS patients, providing updated results of the main clinical trials and registries exploring these particular indications. Finally, the authors provide practical recommendations for TAVR in each of these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is challenging in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) anatomy. The patients are young, morphological phenotypes are many, calcium burden is high and there are technical challenges for best outcomes. Observational studies and registries are available with favorable data and experiences from around the world sharing methodologies and algorithms for sizing and implantation. We, therefore, analysed our data of procedural and in-hospital outcomes of TAVI in Bicuspid Aortic Valve cases performed at two high volume centres in India and their follow up for two years., Methods and Results: The data were collated and analysed from two centres (Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi and Apollo Hospitals, Chennai) in India for patients who underwent TAVI in a BAV anatomy. It included a total of 70 cases from 2 centres. All symptomatic severe AS patients more than and equal to 65 years having bicuspid anatomy were included in the study irrespective of their STS score. Patients under 65 years of age were advised TAVI only if they were at high risk for open heart surgery. These patients were followed for a period of 2 years and the data were analysed. Pre TAVI imaging tools utilised were 2D echo, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), trans oesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and ECG gated multi slice CT (MSCT) scan imaging. MSCT was utilised for confirmation of the anatomy and classifying the morphological type of valve, measuring, and evaluating all anatomic determinants of aortic root complex for planning the procedure and choice of the valve and its size. Sizing in balloon expanding valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve sizing (SEV) were based primarily on annulus area and perimeter, respectively. The SEV used in our study were the Core Valve and Evolut R (Medtronic, United States) and the BEVs included Sapien3 (Edwards Lifesciences, United States) and Myval (Meril Lifesciences, India). The BAV cohort constituted 24.4% of the total 287 TAVI cases, followed up for 2 years. The mean age of these patients was 72 years. The incidence of male patients was 68.57% and female patients was 31.4%. The Sievers type 1 included 78.5%, type 0 were 21.4% of the cases and there was no case of type 2 in the study. The procedural success was to the tune of 98%. Patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved their symptoms class after TAVI and remained so at 2 years follow up. The poor LVEF subset of patients did not have heart failure admissions and also had improvement in their symptom status. The peak-to-peak aortic valve gradient decreased to 0 mmHg at the end of the procedure in most of the cases. The mean pressure gradient (PG) across the new valve ranged between 0 and 15 mmHg and the aortic valve area (AVA) was close to 2 cm 2 . These numbers were consistent at 2 years follow up. Significant paravalvular leak (PVL) 24.28% was seen immediately after deployment of the valve in heavily calcified anatomy but it reduced to mild or trivial PVL after post-dilation and one patient needed a second valve to treat PVL. No patient had more than mild PVL with either type of valve at the end of the procedure. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was required in 11.4% of the patients within 24 h to 7 days of the procedure. No one needed a PPI in the 2 year follow up. Coronary occlusion did not happen to any patient. No patient had a disabling stroke. Non-disabling stroke was seen in 10% of cases and mostly in the first week or 30 days of the procedure and the incidence was more with BEV (14%) as compared to SEV (8%). There was one case of valve embolisation after 24 h of the procedure, which needed a surgical valve replacement. There was no case of annular injury or injury to other parts of the aortic root complex. Two cases had access vessel (femoral artery) thrombosis at end of the procedure and a third patient had proglide related residual stenosis. Two cases had acute kidney injury and needed dialysis. There was no major bleeding complication in any patient. Peri procedural mortality occurred in two patients. Valve thrombosis was seen in one patient after 3 months, which was treated with oral anticoagulation. Valve degeneration and failure or infective endocarditis were not seen in any patient., Conclusion: The patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI in this study had good procedural success rates and clinical outcomes. The haemodynamics achieved with both SEV and BEV were good at 2 years. The rates of PVL, PPI, and stroke are similar to that of many other studies and registries. PPI rate and non-disabling stroke incidence appear to be higher similar to many studies done. There was no case of coronary occlusion in the study. Meticulous CT analysis of the aortic root complex, selection of appropriate type and size of the valve, and best implantation practices along with cerebral protection will probably be the key to safer and more successful TAVI in this population., Competing Interests: AS was Proctor for TAVI and received consulting fee from Meril Lifesciences and Medtronic. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Kumar, Sengottuvelu, Singh, Rastogi and Seth.)

Objective: To evaluate the predictors of new-onset conduction disturbances in bicuspid aortic valve patients using self-expanding valve and identify modifiable technical factors. Background: New-onset conduction disturbances (NOCDs), including complete left bundle branch block and high-grade atrioventricular block, remain the most common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: A total of 209 consecutive bicuspid patients who underwent self-expanding TAVR in 5 centers in China were enrolled from February 2016 to September 2020. The optimal cut-offs in this study were generated from receiver operator characteristic curve analyses. The infra-annular and coronal membranous septum (MS) length was measured in preoperative computed tomography. MSID was calculated by subtracting implantation depth measure on postoperative computed tomography from infra-annular MS or coronal MS length. Results: Forty-two (20.1%) patients developed complete left bundle branch block and 21 (10.0%) patients developed high-grade atrioventricular block after TAVR, while 61 (29.2%) patients developed NOCDs. Coronal MS <4.9 mm (OR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.63-5.82, p = 0.001) or infra-annular MS <3.7 mm (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.04-4.56, p = 0.038) and left ventricular outflow tract perimeter <66.8 mm (OR: 4.95 95% CI: 1.59-15.45, p = 0.006) were powerful predictors of NOCDs. The multivariate model including age >73 years (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.17-4.36, p = 0.015), Δcoronal MSID <1.8 mm (OR: 7.87, 95% CI: 2.84-21.77, p < 0.001) and prosthesis oversizing ratio on left ventricular outflow tract >3.2% (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 1.74-6.72, p < 0.001) showed best predictive value of NOCDs, with c-statistic = 0.768 (95% CI: 0.699-0.837, p < 0.001). The incidence of NOCDs was much lower (7.5 vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001) in patients without Δcoronal MSID <1.8 mm and prosthesis oversizing ratio on left ventricular outflow tract >3.2% compared with patients who had these two risk factors. Conclusion: The risk of NOCDs in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients could be evaluated based on MS length and prosthesis oversizing ratio. Implantation depth guided by MS length and reducing the oversizing ratio might be a feasible strategy for heavily calcified bicuspid patients with short MS., Competing Interests: HJ has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Venus Medtech and has received grant/research support from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Guo, Zhou, Dang, He, Zhang, Fang, Wu, Huang, Chen, Yuan, Fan, Jilaihawi, Liu and Wang.)

Background: We investigated the flow-gradient pattern characteristics and associated factors in severe bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) compared with severe tricuspid AS.Methods and Results:A total of 252 patients with severe AS (115 bicuspid vs. 137 tricuspid) who underwent aortic valve (AV) replacement were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into 4 groups according to stroke volume index and mean pressure gradient across the AV [normal-flow-high-gradient (NF-HG), low-flow-high-gradient, normal-flow-low-gradient, low-flow-low-gradient (LF-LG)]. In 89 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography (CT), influential structural parameters of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), AV and ascending aorta were assessed. Bicuspid AS was more likely to present a NF-HG pattern (83.5% vs. 64.2%, P<0.001), and significantly fewer presented a LF-LG pattern compared with tricuspid AS. In bicuspid AS, there was a significant mismatch between geometric orifice area (GOA) on CT planimetry and effective orifice area (EOA) calculated using the echocardiographic continuity equation. Bicuspid AS presented with a larger angle between the LVOT-AV and aorta. Multivariate analysis of bicuspid AS revealed that systemic arterial compliance (β=-0.350, P=0.031) and the LVOT-AV-aorta angle (β=-0.538, P=0.001), and stroke volume index (β=0.409, P=0.008) were associated with a discrepancy between GOA and EOA., Conclusions: Flow-gradient patterns in bicuspid AS differ from those of tricuspid AS and are associated with the structural and functional characteristics of the aorta.

Background: The authors hypothesized that aortic root geometry is different between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) that can be assessed using real-time three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography. The aims of this study were (1) to validate the accuracy of 3D transesophageal echocardiographic measurements of the aortic root against multidetector computed tomography as a reference, (2) to determine the difference of aortic root geometry between patients with tricuspid and bicuspid AS, and (3) to assess its impact on pressure recovery., Methods: In protocol 1, 3D transesophageal echocardiography and contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography were performed in 40 patients. Multiplanar reconstruction was used to measure the aortic annulus, the sinus of Valsalva, and the sinotubular junction area, as well as the distance and volume from the aortic annulus to the sinotubular junction. In protocol 2, the same 3D transesophageal echocardiographic measurements were performed in patients with tricuspid AS (n = 57) and bicuspid AS (n = 26) and in patients without AS (n = 32). The energy loss coefficient was also measured in patients with AS., Results: In protocol 1, excellent correlations of aortic root geometric parameters were noted between the two modalities. In protocol 2, compared with patients without AS, those with tricuspid AS had smaller both sinotubular junction areas and longitudinal distances, resulting in a 23% reduction of aortic root volume. In contrast, patients with bicuspid AS had larger transverse areas and longitudinal distances, resulting in a 30% increase in aortic root volume. The energy loss coefficient revealed more frequent reclassification from severe AS to moderate AS in patients with tricuspid AS (17%) compared with those with bicuspid AS (10%)., Conclusions: Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography successfully revealed different aortic root morphologies between tricuspid and bicuspid AS, which have different impacts on pressure recovery., (Copyright © 2014 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)