Send to

Choose Destination
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

Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Universitätsklinik Gießen, Gießen, Germany. Electronic address:
Klinik für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Leipzig, Germany.
CardioVasculäres Centrum Frankfurt, Katharinenkrankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany.
Klinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany.
Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Bremen, Germany.
Klinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Bonn, Germany.
Abteilung für Kardiologie, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Trier, Germany.
Abteilung für Kardiologie, Klinikum München Schwabing, München, Germany.
Abteilung für Kardiologie, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Abteilung für Kardiologie, Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Abteilung 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.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center