<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>18(3)</volume><submitter>Chen F</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>It is unknown whether there are differences in coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between bicuspid and tricuspid anatomy.&lt;h4>Aims&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>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 THV- or 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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The inc</pubmed_abstract><journal>EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology</journal><pagination>203-212</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9912966</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9912966</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Peng Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhu Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Feng Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wei X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li Q</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xiong T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhao Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jia K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>He S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ou Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wei J</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic stenosis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>It is unknown whether there are differences in coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between bicuspid and tricuspid anatomy.&lt;h4>Aims&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>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 THV- or 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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The inc</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Jun</publication><modification>2026-03-27T15:42:39.924Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T18:43:03.746Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9912966</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35236643</pubmed><doi>10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00970</doi><doi>10.4244/eij-d-21-00970</doi></cross_references></HashMap>