Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis
by
, , , , , and
Hanyi Dai
†,
Jiaqi Fan
†,
Yuxin He
,
Jun Chen
,
Dao Zhou
,
Abuduwufuer Yidilisi
,
Xinrui Qi
,
Ranxi Li
,
Xianbao Liu
* and
Jian’an Wang
* Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(1), 343; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010343
Submission received: 23 November 2022
/
Revised: 23 December 2022
/
Accepted: 29 December 2022
/
Published: 1 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Abstract
:Background: Comparative data of the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-3)-defined technical success between bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) remain lacking. Aims: We sought to compare the technical success and other clinical outcomes between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: A registration-based analysis was performed for 402 patients (211 and 191 cases of bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively). The primary outcome was VARC-3-defined technical success. Additional analysis was performed to assess outcomes for up to one year between the two groups. Results: Bicuspid AS patients tended to be younger (74 years vs. 77 years; p < 0.001) with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (4.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.003). Bicuspid AS patients showed a lower prevalence of hypertension and peripheral vascular diseases. Technical failure was encountered in 17.7% of these patients, driven primarily by the high incidence of second valve implantation. The technical success rates were comparable between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups (82.5% vs. 82.2%, p = 0.944). Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and larger sinotubular junctional diameter (STJ) were identified as predictors of technical failure, whereas CKD, impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), along with larger STJ, were predictors of cardiac technical failure. Technical failure was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year, as evidenced by the Cox multivariable analysis. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in the technical success rates and most clinical outcomes between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups. Technical failure conferred an increased risk for both 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortalities.
1. Introduction
Owing to the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an established treatment strategy for cases of severe aortic stenosis (AS) irrespective of the surgical risk stratification [1,2]. Due to the expansion of TAVR technology toward younger and low-risk AS patients [3,4], the proportion of potential TAVR candidates with bicuspid AS is on the rise. Therefore, TAVR application for the treatment of bicuspid AS requires particular attention given its complicated morphological characteristics [5].
The updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) for aortic valve clinical research recommends technical success as a novel clinical composite endpoint, substantially different from device success defined in VARC-2 [6,7]. The characteristics of technical failure in a large prospective TAVR registry were recently reported, demonstrating that technical failure was associated with poor clinical outcomes at one year [8]. However, the proportion of TAVR candidates with bicuspid AS in the above study was as low as 5.4%, and no subgroup analysis was conducted [8]. Though Yoon et al. noted that bicuspid AS patients had similar satisfactory survival rates as TAV patients, but with lower VARC-2 device success [9], little is known about the differences in technical success between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS population based on VARC-3 criteria. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the incidence, predictors, and impact on the prognosis of technical failure in a cohort comprising nearly 50% of patients with bicuspid AS.
2. Methods
Study Design and Population Severe AS patients treated with transfemoral TAVR at a high-volume tertiary center between May 2013 and June 2021 were consecutively enrolled. Severe AS was defined as an effective orifice area of ≤1 cm2 with a mean transvalvular gradient of ≥40 mmHg, or a maximum transvalvular velocity of ≥4 m/s. The multidisciplinary heart team determined the eligibility of all TAVR candidates before enrollment. Patients with a quadricuspid aortic valve, pure aortic regurgitation, prior aortic valve replacement, and those undergoing emergency procedures were all excluded. The first-generation self-expanding devices whose delivery system could not be repositioned and retrieved were implanted in all TAVR recipients, including VenusA Valve (Venus Medtech, Hangzhou, China), CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota), VitaFlow Vavle (MicroPort, Shanghai, China), and TaurusOne Valve (Peijia Medical, Suzhou, China). Hangzhou Solution was used as prosthesis sizing selection guide in bicuspid AS patients. This research protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent for TAVR procedures and their relevant data were anonymized.
Preoperative loading of dual antiplatelet therapy is not mandatory unless severe coronary artery stenosis identification before the TAVR procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50% is defined as impaired LVEF. An estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 suggested chronic kidney disease (CKD) [10]. Surgery or intervention for femoral artery stenosis was performed after a comprehensive evaluation.
Bicuspid Aortic Valve All patients underwent multi-detected computed tomography (MDCT) scanning, which is considered to be the gold standard for determining the classification of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Two independent physicians (H.Y.D. and D.Z.) classified bicuspid aortic valve morphology using the 3mensio software (3mensio Medical Imaging BV, Bilthoven, The Netherlands). Bicuspid aortic valve morphology was classified into type 0, type 1 and type 2 following the bicuspid aortic valve classification proposed by Sievers et al. [11]. Type 0 indicated the presence of only two malformed functional cusps without fused raphe. Type 1 represents two adjacent underdeveloped cusps, one fully developed cusp, and one raphe, while type 2 represents two underdeveloped cusps with two raphes.
Study Endpoint The primary outcome was updated VARC-3-defined composite outcome technical success. Additional analyses were performed to assess outcomes between the two groups for up to one year. By the VARC-3 definition, the composite endpoint technical success was assessed at the exit from the catheterization room [6]. Specifically, technical success included the following: (1) freedom from procedural mortality; (2) successful access, delivery, and retrieval of the device system; (3) correct valve positioning, with no need for second valve implantation, and (4) the absence of surgery or intervention related to the device, a major vascular or access-related or cardiac structural complication. Failure to comply with any of the above-mentioned items is considered a technical failure. Specifically, technical failure was categorized into vascular technical failure limited to vascular complications or cardiac technical failure including all other criteria. A 30-day and 1-year follow-up was completed for all patients either by face-to-face assessment or telephone interviews, and the relevant data were recorded.
Statistical Analysis Continuous variables following a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (25th, 75th percentiles) for the Shapiro–Wilk test. Normally distributed variables were compared using Student’s t-test whereas non-normally distributed variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency (percentages) and compared using Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher exact test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify potential risk predictors for technical failure. Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test were used for visualizing and comparing cumulative survival probabilities in the groups. The relationship between technical failure and all-cause mortality was determined using time-independent Cox proportional-hazards models. The simultaneous effects of risk factors were also estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were performed using the SPSS software (IBM SPSS version 25.0, New York, NY, USA). Statistically significant variables were two-tailed p-values less than 0.05 for all tests.
3. Results
A total of 402 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR procedures were enrolled in the study. Among them, 229 (52.5%) were cases of bicuspid AS and the remaining 191 (47.5%) were of tricuspid AS. The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1. Over half of the participants (57.7%) were males. As expected, the baseline characteristics were unbalanced, and multiple differences existed between the two groups. For instance, compared to tricuspid AS patients, bicuspid AS patients tended to be younger (74 years (interquartile range (IQR): 69 to 79 years) vs. 77 years (IQR: 71 to 82 years); p < 0.001). Bicuspid AS patients also had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of 30-day mortality (STS-PROM) (4.4 (IQR: 2.6 to 7.6) vs. 5.4 (IQR: 3.4 to 9.3); p = 0.003) and showed lower incidences of hypertension and peripheral vascular diseases. Previous medical history was similar between the two groups except for the lower prevalence of peripheral vascular diseases (9.0% vs.19.9%; p = 0.002) in the bicuspid AS group.
Typically at baseline, bicuspid AS patients showed higher mean transvalvular gradient (53.0 mmHg (IQR: 43.0 to 71.0 mmHg) vs. 50.5 mmHg (IQR: 41.0 to 64.0 mmHg); p = 0.013) and maximal transvalvular velocity (4.8 m/s (IQR: 4.3 to 5.5 m/s] vs. 4.7 m/s (IQR:4.3 to 5.2 m/s); p = 0.056) but smaller aortic valve area (0.6 cm2 (IQR: 0.4 to 0.7 cm2) vs. 0.7 cm2 (IQR: 0.5 to 0.8 cm2), p < 0.001). For the anatomy of the aortic root measured on MDCT scans, bicuspid AS patients were more likely to present with larger aortic sinuses, ascending aortopathy, and heavier annulus calcium. All dimensions of the aortic root with exception of the annular perimeter-derived diameter in the bicuspid AS group were significantly larger than those in the tricuspid AS group. Specifically, bicuspid AS patients had larger STJ diameter (31.3 mm (IQR: 29.1 to 34.1 mm) vs. 29.3 mm (IQR: 26.2 to 32.2 mm); p < 0.001) and larger ascending aorta diameter at 4 cm (39.0 mm (IQR: 36.3 to 42.0 mm) vs. 35.7 mm (IQR: 33.1 to 38.8 mm); p < 0.001). Bicuspid AS patients had higher left main coronary artery ostium (14.9 mm (IQR: 12.9 to 18.1 mm)) vs. 13.3 mm (IQR: 11.3 to 15.6 mm); p < 0.001) and more severe calcification (57.4% vs. 46.6%; p = 0.030).
Notably, all TAVR procedures were performed via transfemoral access using first-generation self-expanding devices. Procedural characteristics and results are summarized in Table 2. Balloon pre-dilatation, routinely conducted at our center, was performed in 98.7% of these patients. Bicuspid AS patients tended toward a higher prevalence of balloon pre-dilatation (99.5% vs. 97.4%, p = 0.077) and post-dilation (68.2% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.006). The incidences of most procedural outcomes were comparable between the two groups; however, patients with bicuspid AS had a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (6.6% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.009).
For 30-day clinical outcomes (Table 3), the all-cause mortality rate was similar between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups (2.4% vs. 2.1%, p = 1.000). Similar outcomes were observed between the two groups for most clinical outcomes except for a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in the bicuspid AS population. Over a one-year follow-up period, 11 (5.2%) and 20 (10.5%) patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS died, respectively. There were no significant differences in cumulative all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or non-cardiovascular mortality between the two groups at one-year follow-up.
Based on the VARC-3 criteria, 71 cases of technical failure (17.7%) were recorded and there were no differences between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups (82.5% vs. 82.2%; p = 0.944). Cardiac technical failure and vascular technical failure occurred in 53 patients (13.2%) and 23 patients (5.7%), respectively. The detailed reasons for technical failure are reported in Table 4. An additional logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of a technical failure (Table 5). Bicuspid AS was not associated with an increased risk of technical failure, as evidenced by univariable logistic analysis. Additionally, in bicuspid AS-adjusted multivariable regression analysis, CKD and STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm were identified as the predictors of technical failure whereas CKD, impaired LVEF along with an STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm remained independent predictive factors of cardiac technical failure.
Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed for detecting the independent predictive factors of all-cause mortality. As Cox multivariate analysis showed (Table 6 and Table 7), bicuspid AS was not related to 30-day mortality (p = 0.716) or 1-year mortality (p = 0.353). Technical failure (p = 0.031), higher STS scores (p < 0.001), STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm (p = 0.019) were associated with 30-day mortality, while technical failure (p = 0.021) and higher STS scores (p < 0.001) were independent predictive factors of 1-year mortality. Kaplan–Meier estimates of all-cause mortality at 1 year are presented in Figure 1. BAV was not associated with significantly increased all-cause mortality (p = 0.055). This finding persisted in technical success (p = 0.072) and technical failure (p = 0.460) subgroup analyses.
4. Discussions
We sought to compare the technical success rates after TAVR between bicuspid and tricuspid AS patients. The principal findings of the present study were as follows: (1) technical success was achieved in 82.3% of patients treated with TAVR, similar between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups. (2) CKD and STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm were independently associated with an increased risk of technical failure, whereas CKD, impaired LVEF, and STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm were associated with cardiac technical failure. (3) Technical failure was an independent predictive factor of 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality.
Recently published VARC-3 introduced a brand-new composite endpoint technical success. In contrast to the success of VARC-2 devices, updated VARC-3-defined technical success does not consider hemodynamics and can be evaluated immediately at the time of leaving the catheterization laboratory [6,7]. Nowadays, this standardized concept has been widely employed in designing studies and exerts a significant impact on outcomes up to 1 year after TAVR [8].
In the retrospective analysis of the Bern TAVR registry, 88.5% of patients achieved technical success after TAVR with contemporary devices [8]. Technical failure consists of about one-quarter of cardiac technical failure and three-quarters of vascular technical failure [8]. Nevertheless, 17.7% of patients suffered from technical failure in our study, which is higher than that reported in previous studies [8,12]. The relatively high rate of technical failure in our analysis may be related to that all patients treated with first-generation TAVR systems. Moreover, the reasons of technical failure comprised over two-thirds of cardiac technical failure and one-third of vascular technical failure, which was not consistent with that of the Bern TAVR registry. The first-generation self-expanding valves are still the most commonly used devices in TAVR procedures. The first-generation valves were associated with more frequent moderate or greater paravalvular leakage requiring the implantation of a second prothesis, which could be translated into higher cardiac technical failure in our analysis.
Bicuspid aortic valve is one of the most common congenital heart valve diseases. As TAVR gradually expands toward lower risk and younger patients, the number of TAVR procedures performed in bicuspid AS patients keep rising [13,14]. Bicuspid AS is characterized by challenging anatomical characteristics (including elliptical and larger annulus, asymmetrical leaflets, calcified raphes, and concomitant aortopathy), making the device frame exert an asymmetrical radial force on the native annulus, ultimately leading to paravalvular leakage [5,15]. Several studies have suggested that bicuspid AS patients after TAVR have worse outcomes, especially poor hemodynamics, compared to tricuspid AS patients [16]. Thus, bicuspid AS cases were excluded from the landmark TAVR clinical trials, although other studies have confirmed comparable clinical benefits between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS population [9,17,18]. In our analysis, baseline characteristics were heterogeneous between the bicuspid and tricuspid AS groups, with lower comorbidity burden and risk profiles in the bicuspid AS population. These clinical results after TAVR among bicuspid AS patients were comparable with tricuspid AS patients, which is consistent with the previous study. There was a trend toward a lower incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in cases of bicuspid AS, which might be associated with the higher prosthesis implantation depth and effective supra-annular sizing strategies [18]. Due to the lack of clinical data comparing bicuspid AS and tricuspid AS based on VARC-3 criteria, a significant knowledge gap exists in whether bicuspid AS cases have lower technical success rates than their tricuspid AS counterparts. The proportion of bicuspid AS patients in our analysis was substantially higher compared to previous reports based on the VARC-3 definition [8]. The equivalent incidence of technical success between the two groups suggested that TAVR might be a safe and feasible therapeutic option for all patients.
With a rapid increase in TAVR recommendations, elucidating technical failure-related predictors is pivotal for selecting the most appropriate recipients and optimizing TAVR outcomes. Similar to previously established risk algorithms specific for outcomes after TAVR, CKD, and STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm were identified as significant predictors of technical failure whereas CKD, impaired LVEF, and STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm were predictors of cardiac technical failure. Patients with CKD had a higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than those without CKD [19]. CKD can exacerbate age-related systemic vascular atherosclerosis, often accompanied by multiple baseline comorbidities and increased potential mortality risk [20,21,22]. Impaired LVEF in patients with severe AS reflects cardiac decompensation induced by valvular obstruction and an irreversible reduction in ventricular contractility. The negative effect of low LVEF and renal impairment on mortality during the peri-procedural period has been reported [23]. These results may be explained by the fact that patients with CKD tend to be older, present with higher STS scores, and have a higher frequency of impaired LVEF [19]. A larger STJ diameter may weaken the radial force from the plane between the STJ and the ascending aorta, predisposing prosthetic valve dislodgement in the self-expanding TAVR [15,24]. Technical failure may increase all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year; nevertheless, the prognostic impact may be attenuated owing to the longer duration of follow-up which seems to separate immediately after the procedure but remain parallel to the 1-year trends. Similar results were found for BAV and TAV subgroups.
New generation devices feature precise implantation and external sealing to minimize peri-procedural complications. New-generation devices may improve both cardiac and vascular technical success rates owing to the presence of taller sealing skirts, smaller profile delivery systems, and the ability to reposition, in light of adverse impacts of technical failure on clinical prognosis [25,26]. Better outcomes with new-generation devices have been demonstrated in a recent meta-analysis [27]. According to the VARC-2 definition, 5.7% of patients showed major vascular complications associated with an increase in 1-year mortality [25]. Closure device failure is linked to higher vascular complications after TAVR [26]. Vascular technical failures are associated with a 1.9-fold increase in the 1-year risk of cardiovascular mortality after TAVR [8]. Therefore, the development of new closure devices may further improve clinical outcomes.
5. Limitations
This single-center retrospective study has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, in real-world settings, clinical patient selection was at the discretion of the operator, so selection bias could not be avoided. Some baseline characteristics, such as age and STS score, differed between bicuspid and tricuspid AS cohorts. Although technical failure was an independent predictor of 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality in multivariate Cox regression analysis after adjusting for confounding variables (age, STS score, and BAV), randomized trials with comparable baseline characteristics between two groups are required to further verify our findings. Second, the results cannot be directly generalized to all TAVR recipients as transfemoral TAVR with early-generation self-expanding valves only were included in our analysis. Third, considering the low incidence of procedural complications, our study was underpowered to assess the association between baseline characteristics and every single component of the technical failure despite the large sample size. We did not examine the CT-scan data on peripheral vessels, which are theoretically related to vascular technical failure. Finally, patients for whom 1-year follow-up was completed were enrolled in our analysis. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding the impact of technical failure on longer-term prognostic implications between the two groups.
6. Conclusions
In our study, all patients were implanted with first-generation self-expanding, of which bicuspid AS accounted for 52.5% of TAVR candidates. Technical success was achieved in 82.3% of these patients according to the new VARC-3 criteria. Given the comparable technical success rate and other clinical outcomes versus tricuspid AS, TAVR is a feasible option for bicuspid AS patients. Our findings provide crucial evidence that bicuspid AS patients might benefit from TAVR.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.D., J.F. and D.Z.; Methodology, X.L., H.D. and J.C.; Formal Analysis, J.F., D.Z. and A.Y.; Investigation, J.C. and Y.H.; Data Curation, Y.H., X.Q. and R.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, H.D. and J.F.; Writing—Review and Editing, H.D., X.L. and J.W.; Supervision, X.L. and J.W.; Project Administration, X.L. and J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFA0110400 for J.W.). The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81870292 for J.W., No. 81570233, 81770252 for X.L., No. 82200552 for J.F.). Zhejiang Province Science and Technology Department Key R&D Program (2021C03097 for J.W., No.2022C03063 for X.L.). Zhejiang Research Center of Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Treatment Technology (JBZX-202001 for J.W.). Zhejiang Provincial Medical Scientific and Technological Project (2020KY569 for X.L.). Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China (LQ21H020005 for Y.G).
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine (protocol code 2016-038 and date of approval 8 July 2016).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest relevant of the submitted work.
Abbreviations
| VARC-3 | Valve Academic Research Consortium |
| AS | aortic stenosis |
| CKD | chronic kidney disease |
| STJ | sinotubular junctional diameter |
| LVEF | left ventricular ejection fraction |
| TAVR | transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
| MDCT | multi-detected computed tomography |
| IQR | interquartile range |
References
- Lee, C.H.; Inohara, T.; Hayashida, K.; Park, D.-W. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asia: Present Status and Future Perspectives. JACC Asia 2021, 1, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Dai, H.; Wang, L.; Fan, J.; Wang, J.A. Novel apical-to-femoral rail technique for horizontal aorta in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 2022, 23, 613–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otto, C.M.; Nishimura, R.A.; Bonow, R.O.; Carabello, B.A.; Erwin, J.P.; Gentile, F.; Jneid, H.; Krieger, E.V.; Mack, M.; McLeod, C.; et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021, 143, e35–e71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vahanian, A.; Beyersdorf, F.; Praz, F.; Milojevic, M.; Baldus, S.; Bauersachs, J.; Capodanno, D.; Conradi, L.; De Bonis, M.; De Paulis, R.; et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 561–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, S.-H.; Kim, W.-K.; Dhoble, A.; Milhorini Pio, S.; Babaliaros, V.; Jilaihawi, H.; Pilgrim, T.; De Backer, O.; Bleiziffer, S.; Vincent, F.; et al. Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 1018–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Généreux, P.; Piazza, N.; Alu, M.C.; Nazif, T.; Hahn, R.T.; Pibarot, P.; Bax, J.J.; Leipsic, J.A.; Blanke, P.; Blackstone, E.H.; et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated Endpoint Definitions for Aortic Valve Clinical Research. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 2717–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kappetein, A.P.; Head, S.J.; Généreux, P.; Piazza, N.; van Mieghem, N.M.; Blackstone, E.H.; Brott, T.G.; Cohen, D.J.; Cutlip, D.E.; van Es, G.-A.; et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 60, 1438–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tomii, D.; Okuno, T.; Heg, D.; Lanz, J.; Praz, F.; Stortecky, S.; Windecker, S.; Pilgrim, T. Validation of the VARC-3 Technical Success Definition in Patients Undergoing TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 15, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, S.-H.; Bleiziffer, S.; De Backer, O.; Delgado, V.; Arai, T.; Ziegelmueller, J.; Barbanti, M.; Sharma, R.; Perlman, G.Y.; Khalique, O.K.; et al. Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 2579–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, J.; Yu, C.; Ren, K.; Lin, W.; Ng, S.; Chen, Z.; Lin, X.; Wang, L.; Zhu, Q.; He, Y.; et al. Kidney function change after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. J. Zhejiang. Univ. Sci. B 2021, 22, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sievers, H.-H.; Schmidtke, C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2007, 133, 1226–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barki, M.; Ielasi, A.; Buono, A.; Maliandi, G.; Pellicano, M.; Bande, M.; Casilli, F.; Messina, F.; Uccello, G.; Briguglia, D.; et al. Clinical Comparison of a Novel Balloon-Expandable Versus a Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve for the Treatment of Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: The EVAL Registry. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wenaweser, P.; Praz, F.; Stortecky, S. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation today and tomorrow. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2016, 146, w14299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yoon, S.-H.; Webb, J.G.; Leon, M.B.; Makkar, R. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 63, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mylotte, D.; Lefevre, T.; Søndergaard, L.; Watanabe, Y.; Modine, T.; Dvir, D.; Bosmans, J.; Tchetche, D.; Kornowski, R.; Sinning, J.-M.; et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, 2330–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sá, M.P.; Van den Eynde, J.; Jacquemyn, X.; Tasoudis, P.; Erten, O.; Dokollari, A.; Torregrossa, G.; Sicouri, S.; Ramlawi, B. Late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid versus tricuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Fang, X.; Liu, C.; Zhu, G.; Hou, C.R.; Jiang, J.; Lin, X.; Wang, L.; He, Y.; Zhu, Q.; et al. Brain Injury After Transcatheter Replacement of Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2579–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, D.; Yidilisi, A.; Fan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, H.; Zhu, G.; Guo, Y.; He, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lin, X.; et al. Three-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis. EuroIntervention 2022, 18, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohbot, Y.; Candellier, A.; Diouf, M.; Rusinaru, D.; Altes, A.; Pasquet, A.; Maréchaux, S.; Vanoverschelde, J.-L.; Tribouilloy, C. Severe Aortic Stenosis and Chronic Kidney Disease: Outcomes and Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e017190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, E.; Wang, T.-Y.; Callahan, S.; Bilfinger, T.; Tannous, H.; Pyo, R.; Kort, S.; Skopicki, H.; Weinstein, J.; Patel, N.; et al. Impact of Severity of Chronic Kidney Disease on Management and Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Newer-Generation Transcatheter Valves. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2020, 32, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Liu, S.; Han, X.; Chen, Y.; Chen, H.; Dong, S.; Song, B. Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on the Prognosis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of 133624 Patients. Ann. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 28, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sartori, S.; Baber, U.; Cao, D.; Chandiramani, R.; Tchétché, D.; Petronio, A.S.; Mehilli, J.; Lefèvre, T.; Presbitero, P.; et al. The impact of chronic kidney disease in women undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Analysis from the Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (WIN-TAVI) registry. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 96, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yammine, M.; Ramirez-Del Val, F.; Ejiofor, J.I.; Neely, R.C.; Shi, D.; McGurk, S.; Aranki, S.F.; Kaneko, T.; Shekar, P.S. Parsimonious assessment for reoperative aortic valve replacement; the deterrent effect of low left ventricular ejection fraction and renal impairment. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2017, 6, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, D.; Chen, J.; Fan, J.; Yidilisi, A.; Dai, H.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, G.; Guo, Y.; Wang, J.A.; Liu, X. Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with extremely horizontal aortas. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 99 (Suppl. S1), 1432–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grube, E.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Bleiziffer, S.; Modine, T.; Bosmans, J.; Manoharan, G.; Linke, A.; Scholtz, W.; Tchétché, D.; Finkelstein, A.; et al. Clinical Outcomes With a Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prosthesis: The International FORWARD Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 845–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manoharan, G.; Walton, A.S.; Brecker, S.J.; Pasupati, S.; Blackman, D.J.; Qiao, H.; Meredith, I.T. Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With a Novel Resheathable Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve System. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 8, 1359–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ueshima, D.; Nai Fovino, L.; Brener, S.J.; Fabris, T.; Scotti, A.; Barioli, A.; Giacoppo, D.; Pavei, A.; Fraccaro, C.; Napodano, M.; et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis with first- and new-generation bioprostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2020, 298, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrating all-cause mortality at 1 year in BAV and TAV groups, stratified by technical success or technical failure. p-values were calculated using log rank tests. BAV = bicuspid aortic valve; TAV = tricuspid aortic valve.
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrating all-cause mortality at 1 year in BAV and TAV groups, stratified by technical success or technical failure. p-values were calculated using log rank tests. BAV = bicuspid aortic valve; TAV = tricuspid aortic valve.
Table 1.
Baseline Characteristics of Bicuspid AS and Tricuspid AS Patients.
| All n = 402 | Bicuspid AS n = 211 | Tricuspid AS n = 191 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yrs | 75.0 (70.0–80.0) | 74.0 (69.0–79.0) | 77.0 (71.0–82.0) | <0.001 |
| Male | 232 (57.7) | 123 (58.3) | 109 (57.1) | 0.804 |
| BMI | 23.1 (20.8–25.3) | 22.9 (20.5–24.8) | 23.1 (20.9–26.0) | 0.124 |
| STS, % | 4.7 (2.9–8.6) | 4.4 (2.6–7.6) | 5.4 (3.4–9.3) | 0.003 |
| NYHA III/IV | 330 (82.1) | 172 (81.5) | 158 (82.7) | 0.753 |
| Smoker | 91 (22.6) | 43 (20.4) | 48 (25.1) | 0.256 |
| Hypertension | 232 (57.7) | 108 (51.2) | 124 (64.9) | 0.005 |
| Diabetes | 91 (22.6) | 43 (20.4) | 48 (25.1) | 0.256 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 74 (18.4) | 40 (19.0) | 34 (17.8) | 0.765 |
| CKD | 218 (54.2) | 105 (49.8) | 113 (59.2) | 0.059 |
| PVD | 57 (14.2) | 19 (9.0) | 38 (19.9) | 0.002 |
| Prior PCI | 43 (10.7) | 18(8.5) | 25 (13.1) | 0.140 |
| Prior MI | 7 (1.7) | 3 (1.4) | 4 (2.1) | 0.713 |
| Prior pacemaker implantation | 12 (3.0) | 5 (2.4) | 7 (3.7) | 0.446 |
| EF, % | 58.8 (46.6–64.6) | 58.7 (46.6–64.6) | 58.9 (46.6–64.7) | 0.547 |
| EF ≤ 50% | 282 (70.9) | 147 (70.3) | 135 (71.4) | 0.811 |
| Max velocity, m/s | 4.7 (4.3–5.3) | 4.8 (4.3–5.5) | 4.7 (4.3–5.2) | 0.056 |
| Mean gradient, mmHg | 53.0 (42.0–67.0) | 53.0 (43.0–71.0) | 50.5 (41.0–64.0) | 0.013 |
| AVA, cm2 | 0.6 (0.5–0.7) | 0.6 (0.4–0.7) | 0.7 (0.5–0.8) | <0.001 |
| ≥ moderate MR | 94 (23.6) | 42 (19.1) | 54 (28.4) | 0.029 |
| ≥ moderate TR | 62 (15.5) | 30 (14.4) | 32(16.8) | 0.493 |
| Perimeter derived diameter, mm | 24.5 (22.9–26.5) | 24.5 (23.3–26.6) | 24.4 (22.7–26.2) | 0.109 |
| STJ diameter, mm | 30.5 (27.6–33.3) | 31.3 (29.1–34.1) | 29.3 (26.2–32.2) | <0.001 |
| STJ height, mm | 21.8 (19.5–24.7) | 22.1 (19.7–25.2) | 21.6 (19.1–23.6) | 0.017 |
| AA diameter at 4 cm, mm | 37.4 (34.6–40.6) | 39.0 (36.3–42.0) | 35.7 (33.1–38.8) | <0.001 |
| Aortic root angle, degree | 51.0 (45.0–59.0) | 53.5 (46.8–60.0) | 50.0 (45.0–56.0) | 0.004 |
| LM height, mm | 14.2 (12.0–16.7) | 14.9 (12.9–18.1) | 13.3 (11.3–15.6) | <0.001 |
| RCA height, mm | 16.4 (14.4–18.5) | 16.7 (14.7–18.7) | 16.2 (14.3–18.1) | 0.174 |
| ≥severe calcification | 209 (52.3) | 120 (57.4) | 89 (46.6) | 0.030 |
Values are presented as n (%), or median (25th, 75th percentiles). p values in bold are statistically significant. AS = aortic stenosis; BMI = body mass index; STS = the Society of Thoracic Surgeons; NYHA = New York Heart Association; CKD = chronic kidney disease, PVD = peripheral vascular disease; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; MI = myocardial infarction; EF = ejection fraction; AVA = aortic valve area; MR = mitral regurgitation; TR = tricuspid regurgitation; STJ = sinotubular junction; AA = Ascending aorta; LM = left main artery; RCA = right coronary artery.
Table 2.
Procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes.
| All n = 402 | Bicuspid AS n = 211 | Tricuspid AS n = 191 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-dilatation | 396 (98.5) | 210 (99.5) | 186 (97.4) | 0.077 |
| Post-dilatation | 249 (61.9) | 144 (68.2) | 113 (55.0) | 0.006 |
| Conversion to surgery | 5 (1.2) | 4 (1.9) | 1 (0.5) | 0.375 |
| Coronary obstruction | 7 (1.7) | 2 (0.9) | 5 (2.6) | 0.264 |
| Aortic dissection | 7 (1.7) | 5 (2.4) | 2 (1.0) | 0.453 |
| Annular rupture | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1.000 |
| In-hospital mortality | 9 (2.2) | 6 (2.8) | 3 (1.6) | 0.450 |
| Myocardial infarction | 3 (0.7) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) | 0.622 |
| Stroke | 6 (1.5) | 5 (2.4) | 1 (0.5) | 0.219 |
| Disabling stroke | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1.000 |
| Non-disabling stroke | 4 (1.0) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 0.125 |
| New atrial fibrillation | 18 (4.5) | 7 (3.3) | 11 (5.8) | 0.237 |
| Pacemaker implantation | 42 (10.4) | 14 (6.6) | 28 (14.7) | 0.009 |
| Second valve implantation | 46 (11.4) | 23 (10.9) | 23 (12.0) | 0.720 |
| Severe PPM | 23(5.9) | 13 (6.4) | 10 (5.3) | 0.649 |
| Technical success | 331(82.3) | 174 (82.5) | 157 (82.2) | 0.944 |
| Cardiac success | 349 (86.8) | 183 (86.7) | 166 (86.9) | 0.957 |
| Vascular success | 379 (94.3) | 180 (94.2) | 180 (94.3) | 0.975 |
Values are presented as n (%). p values in bold are statistically significant. PPM = patient-prosthesis mismatch.
Table 3.
Clinical outcomes during 30-day and 1-year follow-up.
| All n = 402 | Bicuspid AS n = 211 | Tricuspid AS n = 191 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30-day clinical outcomes | ||||
| Mortality | 9 (2.2) | 5 (2.4) | 4 (2.1) | 1.000 |
| Cardiovascular | 7 (1.7) | 4 (1.9) | 3 (1.6) | 1.000 |
| Non-cardiovascular | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1.000 |
| NYHA III/IV | 109 (28.7) | 45 (22.5) | 63 (35.6) | 0.005 |
| Myocardial infarction | 4 (1.0) | 3 (1.4) | 1(0.5) | 0.625 |
| Life-threatening bleeding | 14 (3.5) | 9 (4.3) | 5 (2.6) | 0.368 |
| Pacemaker implantation | 48 (12.0) | 14 (6.7) | 34 (17.8) | 0.001 |
| 1-year clinical outcomes | ||||
| Mortality | 31 (7.7) | 11 (5.2) | 20 (10.5) | 0.048 |
| Cardiovascular | 21 (5.2) | 7 (3.3) | 14 (7.3) | 0.071 |
| Non-cardiovascular | 10 (2.5) | 4 (1.9) | 6 (3.1) | 0.631 |
Values are n (%). NYHA = New York Heart Association.
Table 4.
Reasons for Technical Failure.
| All n = 402 | Bicuspid AS n = 211 | Tricuspid AS n = 191 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural death | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.9) | 0 | 0.500 |
| Cardiac reason | ||||
| Conversion to surgery | 5 (1.2) | 4 (1.9) | 1(0.5) | 0.375 |
| Pericardial drainage due to annular rupture | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 1.000 |
| PCI due to coronary obstruction | 4 (1.0) | 1 (0.5) | 3 (1.6) | 0.350 |
| Second valve implantation | 46 (11.4) | 23 (10.9) | 23 (12.0) | 0.720 |
| Valve dislocation/embolization | 9 (2.2) | 6 (2.8) | 3 (1.6) | 0.508 |
| Valve retrieval | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| Vascular reason (vascular/access-related complication) | ||||
| Stent placement | 5 (1.2) | 2 (0.9) | 3 (1.6) | 0.672 |
| Vascular surgery | 18 (4.5) | 10 (4.8) | 8 (4.2) | 0.782 |
Values are presented as n (%). SAVR = surgical aortic valve replacement; PPM = patient-prosthesis mismatch; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.
Table 5.
The Adjusted Association of the Relevant Variables with technical success and cardiac technical success, Using Logistic Regression analysis using a Likelihood Ratio Method.
Table 5.
The Adjusted Association of the Relevant Variables with technical success and cardiac technical success, Using Logistic Regression analysis using a Likelihood Ratio Method.
| Variables | Technical Failure | Cardiac Technical Failure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
| β (SE) | p Value | β (SE) | p Value | β (SE) | p Value | β (SE) | p Value | |
| Age, yrs | 0.025 | 0.201 | - | - | 0.020 | 0.351 | - | - |
| BAV | −0.018 | 0.944 | - | - | 0.016 | 0.957 | - | - |
| Male | 0.143 | 0.592 | - | - | 0.705 | 0.029 | - | - |
| BMI | −0.056 | 0.149 | - | - | 0.062 | 0.159 | - | - |
| STS | 0.026 | 0.191 | - | - | 0.031 | 0.137 | - | - |
| NYHA III/IV | 0.085 | 0.807 | - | - | 0.408 | 0.341 | - | - |
| CKD | 0.758 | 0.007 | 0.767 | 0.007 | 0.764 | 0.016 | 0.702 | 0.035 |
| Hypertension | −0.345 | 0.189 | - | - | −0.490 | 0.098 | - | - |
| Diabetes | −0.107 | 0.737 | - | - | −0.127 | 0.725 | - | - |
| PVD | −0.314 | 0.440 | - | - | −0.519 | 0.293 | - | - |
| EF ≤ 50% | 0.626 | 0.023 | - | - | 1.088 | <0.001 | 0.881 | 0.005 |
| ≥ moderate MR | 0.492 | 0.090 | - | - | 0.736 | 0.020 | - | - |
| ≥ moderate TR | 0.381 | 0.259 | - | - | 0.707 | 0.047 | - | - |
| Perimeter derived diameter, mm | 0.053 | 0.287 | - | - | 0.173 | 0.002 | - | - |
| STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm | 0.539 | 0.040 | 0.661 | 0.015 | 1.019 | 0.001 | 1.091 | 0.001 |
| STJ height, mm | 0.028 | 0.373 | - | - | 0.069 | 0.045 | - | - |
| AA diameter at 4 cm, mm | 0.002 | 0.941 | - | - | 0.043 | 0.164 | - | - |
| AA diameter ≥ 40 mm (at 4 cm) | 0.184 | 0.518 | 0.431 | 0.166 | ||||
| ≥ severe calcification | 0.067 | 0.802 | - | - | 0.213 | 0.481 | - | - |
Variables with a p-value <0.10 in univariate logistics regression analysis were included in the multivariate model. Univariate variables in bold are statistically and clinically significant. BAV = bicuspid aortic valve stenosis; BMI = body mass index; STS = the Society of Thoracic Surgeons; NYHA = New York Heart Association; CKD = chronic kidney disease; PVD = peripheral vascular disease; EF = ejection fraction; MR = mitral regurgitation; TR = tricuspid regurgitation; STJ = sinotubular junction; AA = ascent aorta. Factors included in multivariate regression are shown in bold.
Table 6.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of 30-day all-cause mortality, using a Enter Method.
| Multivariable Regression | ||
|---|---|---|
| β (SE) | p Value | |
| BAV | 0.385 | 0.616 |
| Age | 0.035 | 0.600 |
| STS | 0.117 | <0.001 |
| Technical failure | 1.487 | 0.032 |
| CKD | 1.303 | 0.244 |
| STJ diameter ≥ 31.0 mm | 2.466 | 0.018 |
Variables with a p-value < 0.10 in univariate logistics regression analysis were included in the multivariate model. Univariate variables in bold are statistically and clinically significant. BAV = bicuspid aortic valve stenosis; STS = the Society of Thoracic Surgeons; CKD = chronic kidney disease; STJ = sinotubular junction; Factors included in multivariate regression are shown in bold.
Table 7.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of one-year all-cause mortality, using a Enter Method.
Table 7.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of one-year all-cause mortality, using a Enter Method.
| Multivariable Regression | ||
|---|---|---|
| β (SE) | p Value | |
| BAV | −0.392 | 0.317 |
| Age | −0.018 | 0.567 |
| STS | 0.110 | <0.001 |
| Technical failure | 0.915 | 0.021 |
| EF ≤ 50% | 0.413 | 0.337 |
| CKD | 0.984 | 0.061 |
| ≥ moderate MR | 0.633 | 0.107 |
Variables with a p-value < 0.10 in univariate logistics regression analysis were included in the multivariate model. Univariate variables in bold are statistically and clinically significant. BAV = bicuspid aortic valve stenosis; STS = the Society of Thoracic Surgeons; CKD = chronic kidney disease; STJ = sinotubular junction; Factors included in multivariate regression are shown in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Dai, H.; Fan, J.; He, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhou, D.; Yidilisi, A.; Qi, X.; Li, R.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010343
AMA Style
Dai H, Fan J, He Y, Chen J, Zhou D, Yidilisi A, Qi X, Li R, Liu X, Wang J. Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(1):343. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010343
Chicago/Turabian StyleDai, Hanyi, Jiaqi Fan, Yuxin He, Jun Chen, Dao Zhou, Abuduwufuer Yidilisi, Xinrui Qi, Ranxi Li, Xianbao Liu, and Jian’an Wang. 2023. "Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 1: 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010343
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
