Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Roadmap
  • Published:

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid valve morphology: a roadmap towards standardization

Nature Reviews Cardiology volume 20, pages 52–67 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Current classification schemes for BAV.
Fig. 2: Representative multi-slice CT images of bicuspid aortic valves with different anatomical features.
Fig. 3: Proportion of patients with BAV in large-scale, international registries of TAVI.
Fig. 4: Patterns of calcium deposition on bicuspid aortic valves.
Fig. 5: Proposed roadmap to address current knowledge gaps in the treatment of BAV stenosis with TAVI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Article 10 October 2019

Bruce C. V. Campbell, Deidre A. De Silva, … Geoffrey A. Donnan

References

  1. Roberts, W. C. & Ko, J. M. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation 111, 920–925 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sievers, H.-H. & Schmidtke, C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 133, 1226–1233 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Waksman, R. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13, 1019–1027 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vincent, F. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Circulation 143, 1043–1061 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. The Millennium Project. The real-time Delphi. http://www.millennium-project.org/rtd-general/ (2017).

  6. Kochman, J., Rymuza, B. & Huczek, Z. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 30, 594–602 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Popma, J. J. & Ramadan, R. CT Imaging of bicuspid aortic valve disease for TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 9, 1159–1163 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yoon, S.-H. et al. Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76, 1018–1030 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kong, W. K. F., Delgado, V. & Bax, J. J. Bicuspid aortic valve: what to image in patients considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement? Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 10, e005987 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sinning, C. et al. Bicuspid aortic valve and aortic coarctation in congenital heart disease — important aspects for treatment with focus on aortic vasculopathy. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 8, 780–788 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tchetche, D. et al. Bicuspid aortic valve anatomy and relationship with devices: the BAVARD multicenter registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 12, e007107 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boccalini, S. et al. Bicuspid aortic valve annulus: assessment of geometry and size changes during the cardiac cycle as measured with a standardized method to define the annular plane. Eur. Radiol. 31, 8116–8129 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kawamori, H. et al. Computed tomography characteristics of the aortic valve and the geometry of SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 19, 1408–1418 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Rosendael, P. J. et al. Comparison of quantity of calcific deposits by multidetector computed tomography in the aortic valve and coronary arteries. Am. J. Cardiol. 118, 1533–1538 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mazur, P. et al. Stenotic bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves — micro-computed tomography and biological indices of calcification. Circ. J. 81, 1043–1050 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Naito, S., Petersen, J., Reichenspurner, H. & Girdauskas, E. The impact of coronary anomalies on the outcome in aortic valve surgery: comparison of bicuspid aortic valve versus tricuspid aortic valve morphotype. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 26, 617–622 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, A. D., Detwiler, J. H. & Higgins, C. B. Left coronary artery anatomy in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. Br. Heart J. 40, 489–493 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koenraadt, W. M. C. et al. Coronary anatomy in Turner syndrome versus patients with isolated bicuspid aortic valves. Heart 105, 701–707 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Messner, B. & Bernhard, D. Bicuspid aortic valve-associated aortopathy: where do we stand? J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 133, 76–85 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Verma, S. & Siu, S. C. Aortic dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1920–1929 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodríguez-Palomares, J. F. et al. Aortic flow patterns and wall shear stress maps by 4D-flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the assessment of aortic dilatation in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 20, 28 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nistri, S. et al. Aortic root dilatation in young men with normally functioning bicuspid aortic valves. Heart 82, 19–22 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fedak, P. W. M. et al. Clinical and pathophysiological implications of a bicuspid aortic valve. Circulation 106, 900–904 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hillebrand, M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy study of routine echocardiography for bicuspid aortic valve: a retrospective study and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 7, 367–379 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cramer, P. M. & Prakash, S. K. Misclassification of bicuspid aortic valves is common and varies by imaging modality and patient characteristics. Echocardiography 36, 761–765 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wassmuth, R., von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, F., Gruettner, H., Utz, W. & Schulz-Menger, J. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging of congenital bicuspid aortic valves and associated aortic pathologies in adults. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 15, 673–679 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mylotte, D. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 2330–2339 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jilaihawi, H. et al. A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 9, 1145–1158 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Michelena, H. I. et al. International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 112, e203–e235 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Michelena, H. I. et al. Summary: international consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional, and research purposes. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 162, 781–797 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hira, R. S. et al. Trends and outcomes of off-label use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the NCDR STS/ACC TVT registry. JAMA Cardiol. 2, 846 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hayashida, K. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 6, 284–291 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li, Y.-M. et al. Characteristics and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in China: a report from China aortic valve transcatheter replacement registry (CARRY). Chin. Med. J. 134, 2678–2684 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yoon, S.-H. et al. Clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Asian population. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, 926–933 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Li, Y. et al. Prevalence and complications of bicuspid aortic valve in Chinese according to echocardiographic database. Am. J. Cardiol. 120, 287–291 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rao, R. S. et al. Single-center experience of 105-minimalistc transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and its outcome. Indian. Heart J. 73, 301–306 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xiong, T.-Y. et al. Anatomical characteristics of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in China. Chin. Med. J. 134, 2738–2740 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mentias, A. et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 75, 2518–2519 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Elbadawi, A. et al. Temporal trends and outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 12, 1811–1822 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Alperi, A. et al. Aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis outside randomized trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77, 111–123 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hirji, S. A. et al. Benchmarking outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Presented at the STS 58th Annual Meeting (2022).

  42. Bauer, T. et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (from the German TAVI Registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 113, 518–521 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yoon, S.-H. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early- and new-generation devices in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 68, 1195–1205 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoon, S.-H. et al. Outcomes in rranscatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 2579–2589 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Makkar, R. R. et al. Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis and mortality or stroke. JAMA 321, 2193 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Forrest, J. K. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves from the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13, 1749–1759 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Forrest, J. K. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JAMA Cardiol. 6, 50–57 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Makkar, R. R. et al. Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis and mortality or stroke among patients at low surgical risk. JAMA 326, 1034 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Williams, M. R. et al. The PARTNER 3 bicuspid registry for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 15, 523 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mangieri, A. et al. Balloon versus self-expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: insights from the BEAT international collaborative registrys. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 13, e008714 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Seeger, J. et al. Significant differences in debris captured by the sentinel dual-filter cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement among different valve types. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11, 1683–1693 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fan, J. et al. Brain injury after transcatheter replacement of bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76, 2579–2590 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lopez-Pais, J. et al. Impact of significant paravalvular leaks after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on anaemia and mortality. Heart https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316941 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jilaihawi, H. et al. A revised methodology for aortic-valvar complex calcium quantification for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 15, 1324–1332 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Popma, J. J. et al. Relationship of annular sizing using multidetector computed tomographic imaging and clinical outcomes after self-expanding corevalve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, e003282 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Yoon, S.-H. et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 2579–2589 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim, W.-K. et al. Determinants of paravalvular leakage following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 22, 1387–1396 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Husser, O. et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantations and new-onset conduction abnormalities with the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, 244–254 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Siontis, G. C. M. et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 129–140 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhou, D. et al. VitaFlowTM transcatheter valve system in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis: one-year results of a multicenter study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 95, 332–338 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Majmundar, M. et al. Meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve. Am. J. Cardiol. 145, 102–110 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hamdan, A. et al. Short membranous septum length in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis increases the risk of conduction disturbances. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 15, 339–347 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Inohara, T. et al. Appropriateness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insight from the OCEAN-TAVI registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 13, e006146 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Dowling, C., Firoozi, S. & Brecker, S. J. First-in-human experience with patient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13, 184–192 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Baumgartner, H. et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 38, 2739–2791 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vahanian, A. et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 43, 561–632 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Otto, C. M. et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 143, e72–e227 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Willson, A. B. et al. 3-dimensional aortic annular assessment by multidetector computed tomography predicts moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a multicenter retrospective analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59, 1287–1294 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Blanke, P. et al. Oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a commonly used term but a poorly understood one: dependency on definition and geometrical measurements. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 8, 67–76 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Dvir, D. et al. Multicenter evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using either SAPIEN XT or CoreValve: degree of device oversizing by computed-tomography and clinical outcomes. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 86, 508–515 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Buchanan, K. D. et al. Successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement in an oversized 800 mm2 annulus and bicuspid aortic valve. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 19, 65–67 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Xiong, T.-Y. et al. Understanding the interaction between transcatheter aortic valve prostheses and supra-annular structures from post-implant stent geometry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 12, 1164–1171 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Xiong, T.-Y. et al. Supra-annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement candidates with bicuspid aortic valve. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11, 1789–1790 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Iannopollo, G. et al. Supra-annular sizing of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses in raphe-type bicuspid aortic valve disease: the LIRA method. Int. J. Cardiol. 317, 144–151 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Petronio, A. S. et al. Bicuspid aortic valve sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: development and validation of an algorithm based on multi-slice computed tomography. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 14, 452–461 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Liu, X. et al. Supra-annular structure assessment for self-expanding transcatheter heart valve size selection in patients with bicuspid aortic valve. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 91, 986–994 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Blackman, D. et al. Expert consensus on sizing and positioning of SAPIEN 3/ultra in bicuspid aortic valves. Cardiol. Ther. 10, 277–288 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Weir-McCall, J. R. et al. Annular versus supra-annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 14, 407–413 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03495050 (2018).

  80. Tchétché, D. New evidence in treating bicuspid TAVI patients: insights from Bivolut-X registry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vswpEwlRdQ8 (2020).

  81. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02541877 (2015).

  82. Mangieri, A. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the ACURATE neo in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis: a propensity-matched analysis of a European experience. EuroIntervention 14, e1269–e1275 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Makkar, R. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable Sapien3 valve in bicuspid aortic stenosis: an analysis of the STS/ACC TVT registry. https://www.crtonline.org/presentation-detail/outcomes-of-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement (2019).

  84. Blackman, D. J. et al. Clinical outcomes of the lotus valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: an analysis from the RESPOND study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 93, 1116–1123 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sá, M. P. B. O. et al. Balloon versus self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 98, E746–E757 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Frangieh, A. H. & Kasel, A. M. TAVI in bicuspid aortic valves ‘made easy’. Eur. Heart J. 38, 1177–1181 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim, W.-K. et al. Incidence and outcome of peri-procedural transcatheter heart valve embolization and migration: the TRAVEL registry (transcatheter heart valve embolization and migration). Eur. Heart J. 40, 3156–3165 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Halim, S. A. et al. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease: a report from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology transcatheter valve therapy registry. Circulation 141, 1071–1079 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Liao, Y.-B. et al. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilation. Am. J. Cardiol. 117, 1629–1635 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Xu, Y.-N. et al. Balloon sizing during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of different valve morphologies. Herz 45, 192–198 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Perlman, G. Y., Blanke, P. & Webb, J. G. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. EuroIntervention 12, Y42–Y45 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Pislaru, S. V., Nkomo, V. T. & Sandhu, G. S. Assessment of prosthetic valve function after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 9, 193–206 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Giannini, F. et al. Looking for optimal implantation height in bicuspid aortic valve patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a case series. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 21, 25–27 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Eggebrecht, H. et al. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention 8, 129–138 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Xiong, T.-Y., Martucci, G., Alosaimi, H. & Piazza, N. Ad hoc percutaneous paravalvular leak closure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement facilitated by integrated multimodality imaging. EuroIntervention 14, e526–e527 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Gurvitch, R. et al. Multislice computed tomography for prediction of optimal angiographic deployment projections during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 1157–1165 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Sarkar, K., Ussia, G. P. & Tamburino, C. Trans catheter aortic valve implantation with core valve revalving system in uncoiled (horizontal) aorta. overcoming anatomical and technical challenges for successful deployment. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 78, 964–969 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Noble, S. & Roffi, M. Retrograde aortic valve crossing of the corevalve prosthesis using the buddy balloon technique. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 84, 897–899 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Choudhury, T., Solomonica, A. & Bagur, R. The ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic valve system. Expert. Rev. Med. Devices 15, 693–699 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Hiratzka, L. F. et al. Surgery for aortic dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67, 724–731 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rylski, B. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with ascending aortic dilatation: safety of the procedure and mid-term follow-up. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 46, 228–233 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Jacobzon, E., Wolak, A., Fink, D. & Silberman, S. Delayed aortic dissection and valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 93, E391–E393 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Fuchs, A. et al. Subclinical leaflet thickening and stent frame geometry in self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. EuroIntervention 13, e1067–e1075 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Lv, W.-Y. et al. Progression of the ascending aortic diameter after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: based on computed tomography images. J. Invasive Cardiol. 31, E234–E241 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  105. He, Y.-X. et al. Ascending aortic dilatation rate after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis: a multidetector computed tomography follow-up study. World J. Emerg. Med. 10, 197–204 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Gunning, P. S., Saikrishnan, N., Yoganathan, A. P. & McNamara, L. M. Total ellipse of the heart valve: the impact of eccentric stent distortion on the regional dynamic deformation of pericardial tissue leaflets of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150737 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02825134 (2021).

  108. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02628899 (2022).

  109. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03635424 (2022).

  110. Kochman, J. et al. Comparison of one- and 12-month outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (results from a multicenter registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 114, 757–762 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Himbert, D. et al. Feasibility and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with stenotic bicuspid aortic valves. Am. J. Cardiol. 110, 877–883 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Costopoulos, C. et al. Comparison of results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid or nonbicuspid valves. Am. J. Cardiol. 113, 1390–1393 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Mack, M. J. et al. Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA 310, 2069–2077 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81970325, 82170375 and 82102129) and West China Hospital “1·3·5” Discipline of Excellence Project — “Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation” and “Mechanisms of aortic stenosis and the clinical applications” for supporting this project, and Yi Zhang (Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China) for assistance with the literature review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Tian-Yuan Xiong, Yuan Feng, Yong Peng & Mao Chen

  2. Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Walid Ben Ali

  3. Department of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Kentaro Hayashida

  4. Heart Valve Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA

    Hasan Jilaihawi

  5. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Azeem Latib

  6. Division of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

    Michael Kang-Yin Lee

  7. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Martin B. Leon

  8. Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Raj R. Makkar

  9. Department of Heart Valve Therapy, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Thomas Modine

  10. IHU Lyric, Bordeaux-, Pessac, France

    Thomas Modine

  11. Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China

    Thomas Modine

  12. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelmshaven, Germany

    Christoph Naber

  13. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Nicolo Piazza

  14. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    Michael J. Reardon

  15. Department of Cardiology, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK

    Simon Redwood & Bernard Prendergast

  16. Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi, India

    Ashok Seth

  17. The Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Lars Sondergaard

  18. National University Heart Center, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Edgar Tay

  19. Department of Cardiology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France

    Didier Tchetche

  20. Heart Center, ChengHsin General Hospital, Taipei, China

    Wei-Hsian Yin

  21. Cleveland Clinic London, London, UK

    Bernard Prendergast

  22. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Darren Mylotte

Authors
  1. Tian-Yuan Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walid Ben Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kentaro Hayashida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hasan Jilaihawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Azeem Latib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Kang-Yin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martin B. Leon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Raj R. Makkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Thomas Modine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christoph Naber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Nicolo Piazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Michael J. Reardon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Simon Redwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ashok Seth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Lars Sondergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Edgar Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Didier Tchetche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Wei-Hsian Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Mao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Bernard Prendergast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Darren Mylotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

In the author list, the authors from W.B. to W.-H.Y. are listed in alphabetical order by surname. All the authors participated in the Delphi development and evaluation process, which was coordinated by T.-Y.X. and M.C. T.-Y.X. and D.M. wrote the first draft of the Introduction. T.-Y.X. wrote the first draft of the Methodology. T.-Y.X. and A.S. wrote the first draft of the ‘Morphology and anatomy’ section. T.-Y.X. and K.H. wrote the first draft of the ‘Diagnosis and classification’ section. T.-Y.X., W.B., T.M. and L.S. wrote the first draft of the ‘Choice of treatment’ section. T.-Y.X. and N.P. wrote the first draft of the ‘TAVI sizing in BAV’ section. T.-Y.X. and S.R. wrote the first draft of the ‘Device selection’ section. T.-Y.X. and D.T. wrote the first draft of the ‘Intra-procedural considerations’ section. T.-Y.X. and A.L. wrote the first draft of the ‘Post-procedural management’ section. All the sections were edited by M.C., B.P. and D.M. before final review and revision by all the authors. Authors from different regions were encouraged to report local practices during the revisions.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mao Chen, Bernard Prendergast or Darren Mylotte.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Y.F. is a consultant/proctor for Peijia Medical and Venus MedTech. K.H. is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. H.J. is a consultant to Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic, and has received grant and research support from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. A.L. is an advisory board member for Abbott and Medtronic. M.K.-Y.L. is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. M.B.L. has received institutional research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic, and is a consultant or advisory board member for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Gore, Medtronic and Meril Life. R.R.M. has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic, and has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences for travel. T.M. is a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cephea, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Medtronic and Microport, is a proctor for Medtronic, and receives speaker fees from Medtronic. C.N. has received lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, and has served on the advisory boards of Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. N.P. is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic and Peijia Medical. M.J.R. serves on an advisory board for Medtronic. S.R. has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and has served as an international advisory board member for Medtronic. A.S. is an adviser/speaker for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Meril Lifesciences, and is a proctor for Medtronic and Meril Lifesciences. L.S. has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Symetis. D.T. is a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. M.C. is a consultant/proctor for Peijia Medical and Venus MedTech. B.P. has received institutional educational and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and has received speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anteris, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Microport. D.M. is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and Microport and is a consultant for Boston Scientific. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Cardiology thanks Arturo Evangelista, Philippe Pibarot and Flavien Vincent for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Nature Reviews Cardiology also thanks Ottavio Alfieri, who co-reviewed with Nicola Buzzatti; Nicolas van Mieghem; and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of a previous version of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiong, TY., Ali, W.B., Feng, Y. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid valve morphology: a roadmap towards standardization. Nat Rev Cardiol 20, 52–67 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00734-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00734-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing