Abstract
Aims: To report our single-center data regarding the initial 52 consecutive patients with a bicuspid aortic valve who underwent a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure using the new balloon-expandable MYVAL system. The focus is on reporting procedural details and outcomes over the 30-day postoperative period. Methods: From December 2019 to July 2023, 52 consecutive patients underwent a TAVI procedure with bicuspid anatomy. All patients had moderate to-high surgical risk or were unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement based on the Heart Team's decision. Outcomes were analyzed according to the VARC-2 criteria. The results of bicuspid patients were compared to patients with tricuspid anatomy in the overall study group, and further analysis involved a comparison between 52 pairs after propensity score matching. The device performance was evaluated using transthoracic echocardiography. Data collection was allowed by the Local Ethical Committee. Results: The mean age was 71 ± 7.1 years, and 65.4% were male. The mean Euroscore II and STS score were 3.3 ± 3.2 and 5.2 ± 3.3, respectively. Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were well balanced even in the unmatched comparison. Procedures were significantly longer in the bicuspid group and resulted in a significantly higher ARI index. All relevant anatomic dimensions based on the CT scans were significantly higher in bicuspid anatomy, including a higher implantation angulation, a higher rate of horizontal aorta and a higher proportion of patients with aortopathy. In the unmatched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.394), device success 100% vs. 99.1% (p = 0.487), TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.041), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.537), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 2.3% (p = 0.530), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 30.4% (p = 0.429), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0.5% (p = 0.624). In the propensity-matched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 0%, device success 100% vs. 100%, TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.315), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.315), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 0% (p = 0.475), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 24% (p = 0.274), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0%. There was no annular rupture nor need for second valve or severe aortic regurgitation in both the unmatched and matched comparison. The peak and mean aortic gradients did not differ at discharge and at 30-day follow-up between the two groups regardless of whether the comparison was unmatched or matched. There were no paravalvular leakages (moderate or above) in the bicuspid patients. Intermediate and extra sizes of the Myval THV system used a significantly higher proportion in bicuspid anatomy with a significantly higher oversize percentage in tricuspid anatomy. Conclusions: The TAVI procedure using the Myval THV system in patients with significant aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve anatomy is safe and effective. Hemodynamic parameters do not differ between tricuspid and bicuspid patients. However, the permanent pacemaker implantation rate is higher than expected; its relevance on long-term survival is controversial.