Balloon versus self‐expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: A meta‐analysis of observational studies

Abstract

Background There is a rising trend for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients. Data on the use of self‐expandable (SEV) vs. balloon‐expandable (BEV) valves in these patients are scarce. Therefore, we systematically compared clinical outcomes in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients treated with SEV and BEV. Methods Data were extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles. Eight studies published from 2013 to 2020 including a total of 1,080 patients (BEV: n = 620; SEV: n = 460) were selected. Primary endpoints were procedural, 30‐day and 1‐year mortality. Secondary endpoints were new pacemaker implantation, annular rupture, coronary obstruction, moderate‐to‐severe paravalvular leak, need of second valve, stroke and acute kidney injury. Results We found no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients treated with BEV vs. SEV during index procedure, at 30 days and at 1 year. BEVs showed a statistically significant higher risk of annulus rupture (2.5%) in comparison with SEV (0%) (OR 5.81 [95% CI, 3.78–8.92], p < .001). New generation BEVs were also associated with significantly less paravalvular leak when compared to new generation SEVs (OR 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02–0.35], p = .001). Conclusions This meta‐analysis of observational studies of TAVI for bicuspid valves, showed no difference in short‐ and mid‐term TAVI mortality with BEVs and SEVs. BEVs presented a higher risk of annular rupture in comparison with SEV.