Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges of recognizing bicuspid aortic valve in elderly patients undergoing TAVR

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recognition of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) may be challenging in elderly patients with heavily calcified aortic valves undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In this subset, the diagnostic value of pre-procedural echocardiography in clinical routine is unknown. From a total of 2583 patients undergoing TAVR in our center, we determined the rate of BAV detected by routine echocardiography as documented in the medical records. Pre-procedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images were retrospectively analyzed for the presence of BAV and served as reference standard. Using MDCT criteria, BAV was found in 235 (9.1%) (age 80.1 years [interquartile range 76.4; 83.4], 44.3% female). Of these, only 27/235 (11.5%) had been identified as BAV according to echocardiography reports, whereas 6/2348 (0.3%) with TAV had been wrongly diagnosed as BAV (p < 0.001; sensitivity 11.5%, specificity 99.7%). Correct diagnosis of BAV by echocardiography was more likely when transesophageal echocardiography was available (odds ratio (OR) 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.22; 11.80]; p < 0.001) and the reader was experienced (OR 5.28 [95% CI 1.55; 18.04]; p = 0.008). Furthermore, correct diagnosis of BAV was more likely in bicommissural-type BAV (OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.90; 5.48]; p = 0.08), whereas heavy aortic valve calcification lead to misdiagnosis (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.14; 1.06]; p = 0.07). In elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis that are candidates for TAVR, the presence of BAV may be considerably underestimated when relying solely on routine echocardiography. This underlines the value of MDCT for the screening of BAV in this patient population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yoon SH, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O et al (2017) Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 69(21):2579–2589. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Perlman GY, Blanke P, Dvir D et al (2016) Bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: favorable early outcomes with a next-generation transcatheter heart valve in a multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(8):817–824. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Takeda H, Muro T, Saito T et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography for the diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valve: comparison with operative findings. Osaka City Med J 59(2):69–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tanaka R, Yoshioka K, Niinuma H et al (2010) Diagnostic value of cardiac CT in the evaluation of bicuspid aortic stenosis: comparison with echocardiography and operative findings. Am J Roentgenol 195(4):895–899. doi:https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan T, Berlacher K, Lindner JR et al (2015) COCATS 4 Task Force 5: training in echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(17):1786–1799. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim WK, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2017) Comparison of outcomes using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter prostheses according to the extent of aortic valve calcification. Clin Res Cardiol 106(12):995–1004. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-017-1149-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Joo I, Park EA, Kim KH et al (2012) MDCT differentiation between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in patients with aortic valvular disease: correlation with surgical findings. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28(1):171–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9780-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jilaihawi H, Chen M, Webb J et al (2016) A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9(10):1145–1158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G et al (2000) Predictors of outcome in severe, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 343(9):611–617. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200008313430903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kong WKF, Delgado V, Bax JJ (2017) Bicuspid aortic valve: what to image in patients considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.005987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim WK, Gaede L, Husser O et al (2018) Computed tomography for diagnosis and classification of bicuspid aortic valve disease in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11(10):1539–1540. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.12.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim WK, Schafer U, Tchetche D et al (2019) Incidence and outcome of peri-procedural transcatheter heart valve embolization and migration: the TRAVEL Registry (TranscatheteR HeArt Valve EmboLization and Migration). Eur Heart J. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz429

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH et al (2019) Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 380(18):1695–1705. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1814052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Elizabeth Martinson, Ph.D., from the KHFI Editorial Office for her editorial assistance.

Financial disclosures

Won-Keun Kim: Proctor for Symetis SA, St. Jude Medical/Abbott, Lecture Honoraria from Symetis SA, St. Jude Medical/Abbott. Christoph Liebetrau: Lecture Honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyio, and Pfizer—Bristol-Myers Squibb; travel accommodation/meeting expenses from Bayer and Daiichi-Sankyo. Matthias Renker: Lecture Honoraria from St. Jude Medical/Abbott. Andreas Rolf: Lecture Honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb. Mirko Doss: Proctor for St. Jude Medical/Abbott. Christian W. Hamm: Advisory Board Medtronic. Helge Möllmann: Proctor Fees and/or Speaker Honoraria from Abbott, Biotronic, Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude Medical, Symetis SA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kerckhoff Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Rhein-Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 61231, Bad Nauheim, Germany

    Won-Keun Kim, Christoph Liebetrau, Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat, Matthias Renker, Andreas Rolf & Christian W. Hamm

  2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff Heart Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany

    Won-Keun Kim, Matthias Renker & Mirko Doss

  3. Department of Cardiology, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen and Marburg, Giessen, Germany

    Won-Keun Kim, Christoph Liebetrau, Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat, Andreas Rolf, Holger Nef & Christian W. Hamm

  4. Department of Cardiology, St. Johannes Hospital, Dortmund, Germany

    Helge Möllmann

  5. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

    Thomas Walther

Authors
  1. Won-Keun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Liebetrau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Renker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Rolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mirko Doss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Helge Möllmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Holger Nef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thomas Walther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Christian W. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Won-Keun Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All other authors declare that they have no relevant conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, WK., Liebetrau, C., Fischer-Rasokat, U. et al. Challenges of recognizing bicuspid aortic valve in elderly patients undergoing TAVR. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 36, 251–256 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01704-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01704-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation