Abstract
Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are predisposed to the development of aortic stenosis. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis, comparing the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with BAV. Medical databases were queried to pool comparative studies of interest. Single-arm studies, conference presentations, animal studies, and studies that involved patients with tricuspid aortic morphology were excluded. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random effects model in R. There were 60,858 patients with BAV (7,565 TAVR, 53,293 SAVR) included. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day major bleeding (RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.63, p=0.01) but a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker placement (RR 2.17, 95%CI 1.03 to 4.58, p=0.04). No significant differences were seen with other explored outcomes, including 30-day/mid-term mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, major vascular complications, paravalvular leak, and conduction abnormalities. In conclusion, in patients with BAV, TAVR is associated with a lower risk of 30-day major bleeding but has an increased risk for permanent pacemaker implantation when compared with SAVR. Future large-scale randomised trials comparing both the short-and long-term outcomes of SAVR and TAVR in patients with BAV are needed to assess the efficacy of each modality in a controlled population across long follow-up durations.