Objective: bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stands as the most prevalent congenital heart condition intricately linked to aortic pathologies encompassing aortic regurgitation (AR), aortic stenosis, aortic root dilation, and aortic dissection. The aetiology of BAV is notably intricate, involving a spectrum of genes and polymorphisms. Moreover, BAV lays the groundwork for an array of structural heart and aortic disorders, presenting varying degrees of severity. Establishing a tailored clinical approach amid this diverse range of BAV-related conditions is of utmost significance. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the epidemiology, aetiology, associated ailments, and clinical management of BAV, encompassing imaging to aortic surgery. Our exploration is guided by the perspectives of the aortic team, spanning six distinct guidelines. Methods: We conducted an exhaustive search across databases like PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Embase to extract relevant studies. Our review incorporates 84 references and integrates insights from six different guidelines to create a comprehensive clinical management section. Results: BAV presents complexities in its aetiology, with specific polymorphisms and gene disorders observed in groups with elevated BAV prevalence, contributing to increased susceptibility to other cardiovascular conditions. The altered hemodynamics inherent to BAV instigate adverse remodelling of the aorta and heart, thus fostering the development of epigenetically linked aortic and heart diseases. Employing TTE screening for first-degree relatives of BAV patients might be beneficial for disease tracking and enhancing clinical outcomes. While SAVR is the primary recommendation for indicated AVR in BAV, TAVR might be an option for certain patients endorsed by adept aortic teams. In addition, proficient teams can perform aortic valve repair for AR cases. Aortic surgery necessitates personalized evaluation, accounting for genetic makeup and risk factors. While the standard aortic replacement threshold stands at 55 mm, it may be tailored to 50 mm or even 45 mm based on patient-specific considerations. Conclusion: This review reiterates the significance of considering the multifactorial nature of BAV as well as the need for further research to be carried out in the field.

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicentre UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. Mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR vs 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including IABP support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p <0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation provides better early outcomes, as opposed to redo surgical aortic valve replacement, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from hospital.