Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am J Cardiol. 2014 Feb 1;113(3):518-21. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.10.023. Epub 2013 Nov 9.

Comparison of the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (from the German TAVI Registry).

Author information

  • 1Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Universitätsklinik Gießen, Gießen, Germany. Electronic address: bauer-timm@gmx.de.
  • 2Klinik für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Leipzig, Germany.
  • 3CardioVasculäres Centrum Frankfurt, Katharinenkrankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany.
  • 4Klinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany.
  • 5Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Bremen, Germany.
  • 6Klinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Bonn, Germany.
  • 7Abteilung für Kardiologie, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Trier, Germany.
  • 8Abteilung für Kardiologie, Klinikum München Schwabing, München, Germany.
  • 9Abteilung für Kardiologie, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  • 10Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • 11Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • 12Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany.


Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) are considered a relative contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). One of the main reasons is the presumed risk for residual aortic regurgitation (AR). However, case reports and small case series have suggested that TAVI can be successfully performed with acceptable clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with BAV. Within the large German TAVI Registry, we sought to evaluate TAVI in older high-risk patients with BAV. From January 2009 to June 2010, a total of 1,424 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI were prospectively enrolled into the German TAVI Registry. For the present analysis, patients with valve-in-valve procedures were excluded and those with BAV (n = 38, 3%) were compared with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV; n = 1357, 97%). Patient characteristics did not markedly differ and procedural success was very high in both groups. There was a higher rate of relevant AR (≥II) after TAVI among patients with BAV (25 vs 15%, p = 0.05), whereas pacemakers were more often implanted in patients with TAV (17% vs 35%, p = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality rate was similar in both cohorts (11% vs 11%). In a Cox proportional regression analysis, BAV was not associated with higher 1-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.41). In selected patients with BAV, TAVI can be performed with a satisfactory clinical result. Although the risk for relevant AR seems to be greater among patients with BAV, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were not elevated compared with patients with TAV.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk