Surgical vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: A systematic review and...

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature directly comparing the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR in patients with BAV stenosis. Medline, PubMed, and Scopus were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2023, 1862 studies were screened, and 6 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. We included 6550 patients in the final analyses: 3,292 and 3,258 in the SAVR and TAVR groups, respectively. Both groups have similar rates of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.11; 95% CI 0.59-2.10; p = 0.75) and stroke (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.85-1.86; p = 0.26. Patients who underwent SAVR experienced lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.35-0.83; p = 0.005) and paravalvular leak (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.26-0.86; p = 0.02). On the other hand, patients who underwent TAVR displayed lower rates of acute kidney injury (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.15-2.84; p = 0.010), major bleeding (OR 3.76; 95% CI 2.18-6.49; p < 0.00001), and pulmonary complications (OR 7.68; 95% CI 1.21-48.84; p = 0.03). Despite the early mortality data suggesting that TAVR may be a reasonable strategy for patients with bicuspid AS with low to intermediate surgical risk, the increased risk of PPI and PVL is concerning. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial reporting long-term outcomes with pre-defined subgroup analyses based on BAV morphology is paramount. In the interim, caution should be exercised in the widespread adoption of TAVR in lower surgical-risk patients.