Understanding TAVR device expansion as it relates to morphology of the bicuspid aortic valve: A simulation study

This article was originally published here

PLoS One. 2021 May 17;16(5):e0251579. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251579. eCollection 2021.

ABSTRACT

The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common and heterogeneous congenital heart abnormality that is often complicated by aortic stenosis. Although initially developed for tricuspid aortic valves (TAV), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices are increasingly applied to the treatment of BAV stenosis. It is known that patient-device relationship between TAVR and BAV are not equivalent to those observed in TAV but the nature of these differences are not well understood. We sought to better understand the patient-device relationships between TAVR devices and the two most common morphologies of BAV. We performed finite element simulation of TAVR deployment into three cases of idealized aortic anatomies (TAV, Sievers 0 BAV, Sievers 1 BAV), derived from patient-specific measurements. Valve leaflet von Mises stress at the aortic commissures differed by valve configuration over a ten-fold range (TAV: 0.55 MPa, Sievers 0: 6.64 MPa, and Sievers 1: 4.19 MPa). First principle stress on the aortic wall was greater in Sievers 1 (0.316 MPa) and Sievers 0 BAV (0.137 MPa) compared to TAV (0.056 MPa). TAVR placement in Sievers 1 BAV demonstrated significant device asymmetric alignment, with 1.09 mm of displacement between the center of the device measured at the annulus and at the leaflet free edge. This orifice displacement was marginal in TAV (0.33 mm) and even lower in Sievers 0 BAV (0.23 mm). BAV TAVR, depending on the subtype involved, may encounter disparate combinations of device under expansion and asymmetry compared to TAV deployment. Understanding the impacts of BAV morphology on patient-device relationships can help improve device selection, patient eligibility, and the overall safety of TAVR in BAV.

PMID:33999969 | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0251579