Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement For Bicuspid And Tricuspid Valve Disease: 7-Year Outcomes In >1100 Patients

Authors

  • Louis Labrousse Medico-Surgical Department of Valvulopathies, Bordeaux Heart University Hospital, Bordeaux-Pessac, France
  • Michael G. Moront Cardiothoracic Surgery, ProMedica Toledo Hospital, Toledo, OH, USA
  • Francois Dagenais Cardiac Surgery, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Quebec, QC, Canada
  • Michael J. Reardon Department of Cardiovascular Surgery and Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • G. Michael Deeb Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
  • Ralf Günzinger Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Institute Insure, German Heart Center Munich, School of Medicine & Health, Technical University of Munich, Germany
  • Marc Ruel Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Tianhua Wu Clinical Research and Medical Science, Cardiac Surgery, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN
  • Robert J. M. Klautz Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Joseph F. Sabik Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48729/pjctvs.531

Keywords:

Surgical aortic valve replacement, congenital bicuspid aortic valve, tricuspid aortic valve, aortic valve surgery, aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation

Abstract

Introduction: Bicuspid aortic valve affects 0.5-2% of the population in developed countries. Given uncertainties about the best aortic valve replacement (AVR) option in this often younger, low-risk, population, it is important to understand how newer bioprostheses perform in these patients. The primary objective of this analysis was to compare 7-year outcomes of surgical AVR (SAVR) with the Avalus bioprosthesis between patients with a congenital bicuspid or tricuspid valve.
Methods: This prospective, non-randomized study included 1132 patients with aortic valve stenosis or chronic severe aortic regurgitation who underwent successful SAVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis. Patients were categorized into bicuspid (n=339) and tricuspid (n=775) groups; 18 patients had unknown etiology. Kaplan-Meier analyses estimated valve-related adverse events over 7 years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score adjustments evaluated the association of valve etiology with clinical outcomes, and a multivariable analysis identified risk factors for all-cause mortality.
Results: Patients with a tricuspid valve were older with more advanced heart failure symptoms and a higher mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (P<0.01). At 7 years postimplant, mortality was lower [8.9% (95% CI: 5.9%-13.4%) versus 21.3% (95% CI: 18.1%-24.9%), P<0.01] and non-structural valve dysfunction was higher in the bicuspid cohort [2.9% (95% CI: 1.5%-5.5%) versus 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2%-1.6%), P<0.01]. Other safety parameters were not significantly different. In the bicuspid and tricuspid cohorts, the respective mean effective orifice area was 2.0±0.5 and 2.0±0.5 at 7 years, and the respective mean aortic gradient was 13.6±6.4 and 14.1±5.7. Reintervention rates were low [6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%-10.9%) versus 5.4% (95% CI: 3.7%-7.8%), P=0.54] in both cohorts.
Conclusions: SAVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis yielded excellent 7-year outcomes for patients with either a congenital bicuspid or tricuspid valve. Hemodynamic performance and reintervention rates were similar between cohorts with low rates of other valve-related adverse events.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Losenno KL, Goodman RL, Chu MWA. Bicuspid Aortic valve disease and ascending aortic aneurysms: gaps in knowledge. Cardiol Res Pr. 2012;2012(1):1452020. doi:10.1155/2012/145202.

Mehta CK, Liu TX, Bonnell L, Habib RH, Kaneko T, et al. Age-stratified surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2024;118(2):430-438. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.01.013.

Lamas CC, Eylyn SJ. Bicuspid aortic valve-a silent danger: analysis of 50 cases of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(2):336-341. doi: 10.1086/313646.

Ward C. Clinical significance of the bicuspid aortic valve. Heart. 2000;83(1):81-85. doi: 10.1136/heart.83.1.81.

Zghouzi M, Osman H, Ullah W, Suleiman AR, Razvi P, et al. Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2022;20(7):581-588. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2022.2094368.

Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Balbus S, et al. ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561-632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2022;43(21):2022. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac051.

Jørgensen TH, Thyregod HGH, Savontaus M, Willemen Y, Blele Ø, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(37):3804-3814. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae331.

Mehaffey JH, Jagadeesan V, Kawara M, Hayange JW, Chauhan D, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 2024 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.11.023.

Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35-e71. doi: 10.1161/GR.00000000000932.

Sabik JF III, Rao V, Dagenais F, Moront MG, Reardon MJ, et al. Seven-year outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in over 1100 patients: a prospective multicentre analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024;67(1). doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae414.

Sabik JF III, Rao V, Lange R, Kappetein AP, Dagenais F, et al. One-year outcomes associated with a novel stented bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156(4):1368-1377.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2018.03.171.

Siu SC, Silversides CK. Bicuspid aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2789-2800. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.068.

Forrest JK, Kaple RK, Ramlawi B, Gleason TG, Meduri CU, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves from the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(15):1749-1759. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.022.

Forrest JK, Ramlawi B, Deeb GM, Zahr F, Song HK, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(1):50-57. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4738.

Makkar RR, Yoon SH, Leon MB, Chakravarty T, Rinaldi M, et al. Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis and mortality or stroke. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2193-2202. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.7108.

Deeb GM, Reardon MJ, Ramlawi B, Yakubov SJ, Chetcuti SJ, et al. Propensity-matched 1-year outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk bicuspid and tricuspid patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(5):511-522. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.10.027.

Williams MR, Jilalhawi H, Makkar R, O'Neill WW, Guyton R, et al. The PARTNER 3 bicuspid registry for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(5):523-532. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.279.

Tchéché D, Zivello F, De Biase C, De Backer O, Hovasse T, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Evolut platform for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: the international, multicentre, prospective BIVOLUTX registry. Eurointervention. 2023;19(6):502-511. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00021.

Miyasaka M, Yoon SH, Sharma RP, Maeno Y, Jaideep S, et al. Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extremely large annulus and SAPIEN 3 dimensions based on post-procedural computed tomography. Circ J. 2019;83(3):672-680. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-18-1059.

Zaid S, Hirji SA, Bapat VM, Dentl P, Modine T, et al. Surgical explanation of failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;116(5):933-942. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.05.036.

Jawitz OK, Gulack BC, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Matsouaka RA, Mack MJ, et al. Reoperation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(13):1515–1525. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.029.

Bavaria JE, Mumtaz MA, Griffith B, Svensson LG, Pharot P, et al. Five-year outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2024;118(1):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.11.036.

Herrmann H, Pharot P, Wu C, Hahn R, Gilbert HL, et al. Bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics: definitions, outcomes, and evidence gaps: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 80(5):527–544. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.06.001.

Downloads

Published

29-04-2025

How to Cite

1.
Labrousse L, Moront MG, Dagenais F, Reardon MJ, Deeb GM, Günzinger R, Ruel M, Wu T, Klautz RJM, Sabik JF. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement For Bicuspid And Tricuspid Valve Disease: 7-Year Outcomes In >1100 Patients. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 29 [cited 2025 May 30];32(1):25-33. Available from: https://pjctvs.com/index.php/journal/article/view/531

Issue

Vol. 32 No. 1 (2025): Jan-Mar

Section

Original Articles

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Portuguese Journal of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Surgery

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.