TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Comparison and Anatomic Predictors

BACKGROUND Despite the proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in treating tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, the bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) population has been excluded from most of the landmark trials. AIM This study aimed to assess the outcomes of TAVR compared with those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and examine the impact of BAV type, aortopathy, excess leaflet calcification, and raphe calcification on BAV TAVR outcomes. METHOD We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies that assessed the outcomes of TAVR in the BAV population. We also included studies of patients with BAV undergoing TAVR and SAVR, and those assessing anatomical predictors of TAVR outcomes. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled risk ratios, mean differences, and hazard ratios. RESULTS Patients with BAV who underwent TAVR showed significantly lower risks of major bleeding and acute kidney injury, and shorter hospital stays than those who underwent SAVR. However, BAV TAVR had a higher pacemaker implantation rate. Among the BAV types, Type 0 showed a higher risk of coronary obstruction, whereas Type 1 had a lower risk of pacemaker implantation following BAV TAVR. Additionally, BAV TAVR had a higher risk of long-term mortality in patients with aortopathy (ascending aortic diameter >4.5 cm) and excessive leaflet calcification. CONCLUSIONS Compared with SAVR, TAVR in BAV is associated with favourable in-hospital outcomes. Anatomical features, such as BAV type, aortopathy, excess leaflet calcification, and calcified raphe, significantly influence the outcomes of TAVR in the BAV population.