Sex-Specific Differences in Aortic Valve Calcification Between Bicuspid and Tricuspid Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Sex-specific thresholds of aortic valve calcification (AVC) correlate with aortic stenosis (AS) and may complement echocardiography to determine AS severity. Importantly, current guideline-recommended thresholds of AVC scores derived by multislice computed tomography do not distinguish between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sex-specific differences in the amount of AVC in patients with severe AS and tricuspid (TAV) versus bicuspid (BAV) aortic valve morphologies, retrospectively evaluated by 2 tertiary care institutions. The inclusion criteria comprised patients with severe AS and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and suitable imaging examinations. The study included 1,450 patients (723 men; 49.9%) with severe AS, including 1,335 patients with TAV (92.1%) and 115 with BAV (17.9%). The calculated Agatston score was higher in BAV patients (men: BAV 4,358 [2,644 to 6,005] AU vs TAV 2,643 [1,727 to 3,794] AU, p <0.01; women: BAV 2,174 [1,330 to 4,378] AU vs TAV 1,703 [964 to 2,534] AU, p <0.01), also when indexed for valve dimensions and body surface area (men: BAV 2,227 [321 to 3,105] AU/m2 vs TAV 1,333 [872 to 1,913] AU/m2, p <0.01; women: BAV 1,326 [782 to 2,148] AU/m2 vs TAV 930 [546 to 1,456] AU/m2, p <0.01). Differences between the BAV- and TAV-derived Agatston score was more prominent in concordant severe AS. In conclusion, sex-specific Agatston scores in severe AS were approximately 1/3 higher in patients with BAV than in patients with TAV for both women and men. Optimal AVC thresholds should be adjusted for BAV, also respecting considerable prognostic implications.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure after TAVI in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis during one-year follow-up according to VARC-3.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has become more frequent in the last years. This may pose challenges for long-time valve durability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) with the newest-generation devices in BAV stenosis up to one-year follow-up (FU). METHODS: The primary endpoint was defined as the prevalence of BVD during the first procedural year according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 criteria. Secondary endpoints were defined as failure in device success and clinical endpoints according to VARC-3. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included. Of these, 34 subjects (31.8%) met the criteria for BVD during a mean FU of 263 ± 180 days, of which 20.2% were already documented after thirty days. Device success after one year was lower in the + BVD cohort (57.6% vs. 98.7%, p < 0.0001*). The rates of structural valve deterioration were 6.5%, non-structural valve deterioration (NSVD) 17.8%, subclinical leaflet thickening 10.3%, and endocarditis 0.9%. NSVD was foremost triggered by patient prosthesis mismatch in balloon-expandable valves. Hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 1 and 2 was confirmed in 16.8% of + BVD patients, while stage 1 and 3 bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 1.9%. There was no impact of BVD on mortality. CONCLUSION: There is critical evidence of early BVD after TAVI in BAV during one-year FU in one-third of patients, also lowering device success. The most frequently observed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was NSVD due to patient prosthesis mismatch following TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve.