Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal evaluations of transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) devices. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AV stenosis compared with those with tricuspid AV. We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (November 2011-November 2018) to determine device success, procedural outcomes, post-TAVR valve performance, and in-hospital clinical outcomes (mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) according to valve morphology (bicuspid vs. tricuspid). Results were stratified by older and current (Sapien 3 and Evolut R) generation valve prostheses. Medicare administrative claims were used to evaluate mortality and stroke to 1 year among eligible individuals (≥65 years). After exclusions, there were 170,959 eligible procedures at 593 sites during the specified interval. Of these, 5,412 TAVR procedures (3.2%) were performed in bicuspid AV patients, including 3,705 with current generation devices. Compared to patients with tricuspid valves, bicuspid AV patients were younger and had a lower STS Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality (PROM) score. When current generation devices were used to treat bicuspid AV patients, device success increased (93.5 vs. 96.3, p=0.001) and the incidence of 2+ aortic insufficiency declined (14.0 vs. 2.7%, p<0.001) compared with older generation devices. With current generation devices, device success was slightly lower in the bicuspid (vs. tricuspid) AV group (96.3% in bicuspid vs. 97.4% in tricuspid, p=0.07), with a slightly higher incidence of residual moderate or severe aortic insufficiency among bicuspid AV patients (2.7% vs. 2.1%, p<0.001). A lower 1-year adjusted risk of mortality (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.99) was observed for bicuspid vs. tricuspid AV patients in the Medicare-linked cohort, while no difference was observed in the 1-year adjusted risk of stroke (hazard ratio 1.14, confidence interval 0.94-1.39). Using current generation devices, procedural, post-procedural, and 1-year outcomes were comparable following TAVR for bicuspid AV vs. tricuspid AV disease. With newer generation devices, TAVR is a viable treatment option for bicuspid AV patients.