Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis: A Systematic review and meta-analysis
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis: A Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is a leading cause of aortic stenosis (AS). Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has traditionally been regarded as the best therapeutic option for bicuspid AS. However, the distinctive anatomical characteristics of BAV make the treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) challenging, so this population was often excluded from the trials. We aimed to compare TAVR and SAVR in terms of safety and efficacy in the population with bicuspid AS.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, searched from PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception until September 2025). Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
A total of 78,677 patients were included in one RCT, 12 retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. TAVR, compared to SAVR, was associated with significantly higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (O.R. = 2.29, 95% C.I. [1.51, 3.47], P < 0.01) and shorter length of hospital stay (M.D. = −2.24, 95% C.I. [-3.96, −0.52], P = 0.01) and lower bleeding rates (O.R. = 0.31, 95% C.I. [0.14, 0.69], P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (ACM) (P = 0.948), acute kidney injury (AKI) (P = 0.28), stroke incidence (P = 0.475), and vascular complications (P = 0.31). The PPI and stroke rate results were consistent during in-hospital and short-term follow-ups. However, subgroup analysis by follow-up duration revealed that long-term stroke incidence was significantly higher in the TAVI group.
Conclusion
TAVR offers benefit by minimizing significant bleeding and hospital length of stay. However, the benefits should be balanced against the considerably increased risk of PPI and PVL. Further RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
MichelenaHIPrakashSKDella CorteA, et al.Bicuspid aortic valve: identifying knowledge gaps and rising to the challenge from the international bicuspid aortic valve consortium (BAVCon). Circulation2014; 129(25): 2691–2704. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.007851
2.
PhilipFFazaNNSchoenhagenP, et al.Aortic annulus and root characteristics in severe aortic stenosis due to bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valves: implications for transcatheter aortic valve therapies. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2015; 86(2): E88–E98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25948
RingLShahBNBhattacharyyaS, et al.Echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis: a practical guideline from the British society of echocardiography. Echo Res Pract2021; 8(1): G19–G59. https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-20-0035
5.
LeonMBSmithCRMackM, et al.Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med2010; 363(17): 1597–1607. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008232
6.
AdamsDHPopmaJJReardonMJ, et al.Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med2014; 370(19): 1790–1798. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1400590
7.
SmithCRLeonMBMackMJ, et al.Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2011; 364(23): 2187–2198. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1103510
8.
ReardonMJVan MieghemNMPopmaJJ, et al.Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med2017; 376(14): 1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1700456
9.
LeonMBSmithCRMackMJ, et al.Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med2016; 374(17): 1609–1620. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1514616
10.
MackMJLeon MartinBThourani VinodH, et al.Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med2019; 380(18): 1695–1705. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1814052
11.
PopmaJJDeebGMYakubovSJ, et al.Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med2019; 380(18): 1706–1715. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1816885
12.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al.RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J2019; 366: l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
16.
StangA. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol2010; 25(9): 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
17.
BalduzziSRückerGSchwarzerG. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Base Ment Health2019; 22(4): 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
18.
AbbasAHefnawyMTNegidaA. Meta-analysis accelerator: a comprehensive tool for statistical data conversion in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol2024; 24(1): 243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02356-6
xinHYqiFJfengZQ, et al.Ascending aortic dilatation rate after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis: a multidetector computed tomography follow-up study. World J Emerg Med2019; 10(4): 197.
23.
ForrestJKKapleRKRamlawiB, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves from the STS/ACC TVT registry. Cardiovascular Interventions2020; 13(15): 1749–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.022
24.
YoonSHBleizifferSDe BackerO, et al.Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2017; 69(21): 2579–2589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
25.
OttoCMNishimuraRABonowRO, et al.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. J Am Coll Cardiol2021; 77(4): 450–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.035
26.
JørgensenTHThyregodHGHSavontausM, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial. Eur Heart J2024; 45(37): 3804–3814. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae331
27.
RobertsWCKoJM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation2005; 111(7): 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000155623.48408.C5
28.
BlankenbergSSeiffertMVontheinR, et al.Transcatheter or surgical treatment of aortic-valve stenosis. N Engl J Med2024; 390(17): 1572–1583. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2400685
29.
MackMJLeonMBThouraniVH, et al.Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in low-risk patients at five years. N Engl J Med2023; 389(21): 1949–1960. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307447
30.
FairbairnTKempIYoungA, et al.Effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs surgical aortic valve replacement on all-cause mortality in patients with aortic stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA2022; 327(19): 1875–1887. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.5776
31.
MakkarRRYoonSHLeonMB, et al.Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis and mortality or stroke. JAMA2019; 321(22): 2193–2202. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.7108
32.
KangJJFialkaNMRyaanEA, et al.Surgical vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Cardiovasc Med2024; 34(5): 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2023.04.004
33.
ElbadawiASaadMElgendyIY, et al.Temporal trends and outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2019; 12(18): 1811–1822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.06.037
34.
HussoAAiraksinenJJuvonenT, et al.Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve. Clin Res Cardiol2021; 110(3): 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01761-3
35.
ChenQMalasJMegnaD, et al.Bicuspid aortic stenosis: national three-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement among medicare beneficiaries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2024; 168(4): 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.12.002
36.
SanaihaYHadayaJETranZ, et al.Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2023; 115(3): 611–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.030
37.
ChiarielloGADi MauroMPasquiniA, et al.Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement. Interdisciplinary CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery2024; 38(5): ivae100. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivae100
38.
Van MieghemNMDeebGMSøndergaardL, et al.Self-expanding transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: 5-Year outcomes of the SURTAVI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol2022; 7(10): 1000–1008. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2695
39.
WebbJGAltweggLBooneRH, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on clinical and valve-related outcomes. Circulation2009; 119(23): 3009–3016. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.837807
40.
KovarovicBJRotmanOMParikhPB, et al.Mild paravalvular leak May pose an increased thrombogenic risk in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients-insights from patient specific in vitro and in silico studies. Bioengineering2023; 10(2): 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10020188
41.
SiontisGCJüniPPilgrimT, et al.Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol2014; 64(2): 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.033
42.
FranzoniILatibAMaisanoF, et al.Comparison of incidence and predictors of left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve versus the edwards valve. Am J Cardiol2013; 112(4): 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.026
43.
YousefASimardTWebbJ, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: a patient level multi-center analysis. Int J Cardiol2015; 189: 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.04.066
Attinger‐TollerABhindiRPerlmanGY, et al.Mid‐term outcome in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a current generation device: a multicenter study. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2020; 95(6): 1186–1192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28475
46.
AilawadiGLaParDJSpeirAM, et al.Contemporary costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched cost analysis. Ann Thorac Surg2016; 101(1): 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.120
47.
ManthaAJuoYYMorchiR, et al.Evolution of surgical aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter valve technology. JAMA Surg2017; 152(11): 1080–1083. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2344
48.
PrazFBorgerMALanzJ, et al.ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the task force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and the european association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J2025; 29: ehaf194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
