Coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis

Background: It is unknown whether there are differences in coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between bicuspid and tricuspid anatomy. Aims: Our aim was to investigate coronary access after TAVR using a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (BAV vs TAV), based on CT simulation. Methods: A total of 86 type 0 BAV, 70 type 1 BAV, and 132 TAV patients were included. If the coronary ostium faced the sealed parts of the THV or the tilted-up native leaflet (NL), this was defined as THVor NL-related challenging coronary access, respectively. If coaxial engagement was not allowed due to interference from the unwrapped frame, THV-related complex coronary access was defined. Results: The incidence of THV-related challenging coronary access was 21.2% for the left coronary artery (LCA) and 17.7% for the right coronary artery (RCA), and type 0 BAV patients encountered fewer THVrelated challenging LCA access than their TAV counterparts (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20 -0.89). NL-related challenging coronary access was observed in 3.1% for LCA and 1.4% for RCA, and THV-related complex coronary access was identified in 5.9% for LCA and 17.0% for RCA; however, no significant differences were found among groups. The proportion of optimal fluoroscopic viewing angles suitable for guiding LCA engagement was similar among groups (64.0% vs 70.0% vs 62.1%), but those suitable for guiding RCA engagement were significantly higher in the type 0 BAV group (31.4% vs 4.3% vs 9.1%). Conclusions: Coronary access may be challenging or complex in a significant proportion of both BAV and TAV patients after TAVR. Type 0 BAV anatomy may be more favourable for post-TAVR coronary access.