Key result
TAVI proves feasible in complex anatomies but requires anatomy-driven Heart Team assessment for lifetime management.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with complex anatomy (bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, pure native aortic regurgitation, and small aortic annulus)?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with complex anatomy (bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, pure native aortic regurgitation, and small aortic annulus)?
TAVI is feasible in complex aortic anatomies like bicuspid valves, pure regurgitation, and small annuli, but requires careful anatomy-driven patient selection and lifetime management planning, with surgery remaining relevant for many younger or operable patients.
May support individualized TAVI decisions in BAV, AR, and small annuli; extends RCT evidence beyond standard tricuspid AS.
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is established for severe calcific tricuspid aortic stenosis, but its application in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis, pure native aortic regurgitation (AR), and small aortic annulus anatomy remains limited by heterogeneous morphology, device-specific constraints, and uncertain long-term outcomes. These settings require decisions that extend beyond immediate procedural success to encompass coronary access, reintervention, valve durability, and associated aortopathy. This review synthesizes current evidence and proposes an anatomy-driven framework integrating imaging, device selection, procedural planning, and lifetime management. Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted in accordance with the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) criteria. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2026 for studies addressing TAVI in BAV stenosis, pure native AR, and small aortic annulus anatomy. Randomized trials, meta-analyses, multicenter registries, pivotal device studies, and guideline or consensus documents were prioritized. After screening 2663 records and assessing 330 full-text reports, 101 records were retained for qualitative synthesis. Evidence was appraised by anatomical substrate, imaging phenotype, device strategy, procedural hazards, and implications for lifetime management. Results: In BAV stenosis, contemporary registry and prospective cohort data support high device success and acceptable early and mid-term outcomes in carefully selected patients; however, calcified raphe, bulky asymmetric leaflet or left ventricular outflow tract calcification, annular eccentricity, and concomitant aortopathy identify higher-risk phenotypes that often favor surgery. Randomized evidence in younger low-risk BAV patients remains limited and exploratory, with the NOTION-2 trial showing a numerically higher 3-year composite event rate after TAVI than surgical aortic valve replacement (20.4% vs. 7.8%; hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 0.9–9.0) in the small bicuspid subgroup. In pure native AR, lack of annular calcification and frequent root dilatation impair anchoring of conventional transcatheter heart valves, increasing risks of migration, embolization, residual AR, and second-valve implantation. Dedicated leaflet-anchoring devices have improved outcomes: in ALIGN-AR, the JenaValve Trilogy system achieved procedural success above 95% in high-surgical-risk patients, although evidence remains single-arm and nonrandomized. In small annuli, the strongest comparative evidence comes from the SMART trial, in which supra-annular self-expanding valves were non-inferior to balloon-expandable valves for the 12-month clinical composite and reduced moderate/severe prosthesis–patient mismatch at 30 days (11.2% vs. 35.3%). Across all three phenotypes, electrocardiography-gated computed tomography is fundamental for defining anchoring, sizing, calcium distribution, root and coronary anatomy, anticipated coronary re-access, and the feasibility of redo-TAVI. Surgery remains particularly relevant when aortic repair, annular/root enlargement, or a more durable lifetime strategy is required. Conclusions: TAVI is feasible in selected patients with BAV stenosis, pure native AR, and small aortic annuli, but the evidentiary strength and optimal procedural strategy differ substantially across these anatomies. Treatment should be guided by an anatomy-driven, computed-tomography-based Heart Team assessment that integrates immediate procedural feasibility with age, surgical candidacy, aortopathy, prosthesis–patient mismatch risk, coronary access, durability, and future reintervention options. Surgery remains the more established strategy for many younger, operable patients with unfavorable BAV morphology or aortopathy, AR with root dilatation, or very small annuli amenable to enlargement. Dedicated randomized trials, standardized imaging criteria, and long-term durability data are needed to refine lifetime management in complex aortic valve anatomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brie et al. (2026) conducted a review in Bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, pure native aortic regurgitation, and small aortic annulus (n=101). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement or alternative transcatheter valves was evaluated. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is feasible in complex anatomies, but optimal strategy differs substantially and requires an anatomy-driven Heart Team assessment for lifetime management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: