Comparable Outcomes of Bicuspid Aortic Valves for Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

Edwards Intuity is recognized as a relatively contraindicated bioprosthesis for bicuspid aortic valve disease. This study compared the early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves.

Of 278 patients who underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement using Intuity at Seoul National University Hospital, 252 patients were enrolled after excluding those with pure aortic regurgitation, prosthetic valve failure, endocarditis, and quadricuspid valves. The bicuspid and tricuspid groups included 147 and 105 patients, respectively. Early outcomes and the incidence of paravalvular leak were compared between the groups. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes for type 0 versus type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves.

The bicuspid group had more male and younger patients. Comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease, were less prevalent in the bicuspid group. Early echocardiographic evaluations demonstrated that the incidence of ≥mild paravalvular leak did not differ significantly between the groups (5.5% vs. 1.0% in the bicuspid vs. tricuspid groups, p=0.09), and the early clinical outcomes were also comparable between the groups. In the subgroup analysis between type 0 and type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves, the incidence of mild or greater paravalvular leak (2.4% vs. 6.7% in type 0 vs. type 1 or 2, p=0.34) and clinical outcomes were comparable.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valves demonstrated comparable early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes to those for tricuspid aortic valves, and the outcomes were also satisfactory for type 0 bicuspid aortic valves.