Technical Success after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

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.