Document resource
Aims To compare the quantitative angiographic assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using ACURATE neo2 transcatheter heart valve (THV) between patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis.Methods Pooled date from the multicenter European, observational Early neo2 ( NCT04810195) & Neo2BAV (NCT06212050) registries was used . All analysis were performed by single imaging core laboratory independent from clinical outcomes. Dicom datasets of procedure angiograms were analyszed using commercilaly available software (CAAS-A-Valve 2.1.2, Pie Medical Imaging, the Netherlands). The software compared contrast videodensity between the reference region in the ascending aorta and LVOT as a region of interest. The result of this analysis is displayed in percentages which has been validated a surrogate of aortic regurgitation fraction (RF). In addition, the RF was classified based on established thresholds as: none/trace AR (RF ≤ 6%), mild AR as (6%< RF ≤ 17%), and moderate/severe AR (RF >17%).Results Two hundred forty-three analyzable aortograms; tricuspid group (n=168) and bicuspid group (n=75) were included in the final analysis. The incidence of AR were: non/trace (75% vs 65%, p=0.1627), mild AR (23% vs 32%, p=0.1645) and moderate/severe AR (2.4% vs 2.7%, p=0.8945), respectively for tricuspid and bicuspid groups. The median RF for tricspid vs bicuspid group was 3.0% (IQR 1.0–6.0) vs 4.0% (IQR 1.0–7.0), with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.2).Conclusion Significant AR was comparable between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis. However, the mild PVL was numbercially higher in the bicuspid arm, yet, statistically non-significant. Further studies using larger samples are warranted to confirm our findings.