Literature DB >> 28040769

Evidence of subannular and left ventricular morphological differences in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis: magnetic resonance imaging-based analysis.

Kushtrim Disha1, Georg Dubslaff2, Mina Rouman1, Beatrix Fey2, Michael A Borger3, Alex J Barker4, Thomas Kuntze1, Evaldas Girdauskas1,5.   

Abstract

Objectives: Prospective analysis of left ventricular (LV) morphological/functional parameters in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.
Methods: A total of 190 consecutive patients with BAV ( n  = 154) and TAV stenosis ( n  = 36) (mean age 61 ± 8 years, 65% male) underwent AVR ± concomitant aortic surgery from January 2012 through May 2015. All patients underwent preoperative cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in order to evaluate: (i) left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) dimensions, (ii) length of anterior mitral leaflet (AML), (iii) end-systolic and end-diastolic LV wall thickness, (iv) LV area, (v) LV end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters (LVESD, LVEDD), (vi) LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV, LVESV) and (vii) maximal diameter of aortic root. These parameters were compared between the two study groups.
Results: The LVOT diameter was significantly larger in BAV patients (21.7 ± 3 mm in BAV vs 18.9 ± 3 mm in TAV, P  < 0.001). Moreover, BAV patients had significantly longer AML (24 ± 3 mm in BAV vs 22 ± 4 mm in TAV, P  = 0.009). LVEDV and LVESV were significantly larger in BAV patients (LVEDV: 164.9 ± 68.4 ml in BAV groups vs 126.5 ± 53.1 ml in TAV group, P  = 0.037; LVESV: 82.1 ± 57.9 ml in BAV group vs 52.9 ± 25.7 ml in TAV group, P  = 0.008). A strong linear correlation was found between LVOT diameter and aortic annulus diameter in BAV patients ( r  = 0.7, P  < 0.001), whereas significantly weaker correlation was observed in TAV patients ( r  = 0.5, P  = 0.006, z  = 1.65, P  = 0.04). Presence of BAV morphology was independently associated with larger LVOT diameters (OR 9.0, 95% CI 1.0-81.3, P  = 0.04). Conclusions: We found relevant differences in LV morphological/functional parameters between BAV and TAV stenosis patients. Further investigations are warranted in order to determine the cause of these observed differences.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve stenosis; Ascending aorta; Bicuspid aortic valve; Cardiomyopathy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28040769      PMCID: PMC6283034          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable?

Authors:  N G Bellenger; M I Burgess; S G Ray; A Lahiri; A J Coats; J G Cleland; D J Pennell
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 29.983

2.  The congenitally bicuspid aortic valve: how does it function? Why does it fail?

Authors:  Francis Robicsek; Mano J Thubrikar; Joseph W Cook; Brett Fowler
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Influence of structural geometry on the severity of bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Kathryn E Richards; Dimitri Deserranno; Erwan Donal; Neil L Greenberg; James D Thomas; Mario J Garcia
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 4.733

4.  Aortic dimensions in patients with bicuspid aortic valve without significant valve dysfunction.

Authors:  Moreno Cecconi; Marcello Manfrin; Alessandra Moraca; Raffaele Zanoli; Pier Luigi Colonna; Maria Grazia Bettuzzi; Stefano Moretti; Domenico Gabrielli; Gian Piero Perna
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  Planimetric assessment of anatomic valve area overestimates effective orifice area in bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Erwan Donal; Gian M Novaro; Dimitri Deserrano; Zoran B Popovic; Neil L Greenberg; Kathryn E Richards; James D Thomas; Mario J Garcia
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.251

Review 6.  Bicuspid aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Samuel C Siu; Candice K Silversides
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  The congenitally bicuspid aortic valve. A study of 85 autopsy cases.

Authors:  W C Roberts
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1970-07       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Aortopathy in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: role of aortic root functional parameters.

Authors:  Evaldas Girdauskas; Mina Rouman; Kushtrim Disha; Andres Espinoza; Georg Dubslaff; Beatrix Fey; Bernhard Theis; Iver Petersen; Michael A Borger; Thomas Kuntze
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 4.191

9.  Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in subjects with a bicuspid aortic valve without significant valvular dysfunction.

Authors:  Mehmet Demir
Journal:  Exp Clin Cardiol       Date:  2013

10.  Association of aortic dilation with regurgitant, stenotic and functionally normal bicuspid aortic valves.

Authors:  R T Hahn; M J Roman; A H Mogtader; R B Devereux
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  2 in total

1.  Less pronounced reverse left ventricular remodeling in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to tricuspid aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Tian-Yuan Xiong; Xi Wang; Yi-Jian Li; Yan-Biao Liao; Zhen-Gang Zhao; Xin Wei; Yuan-Ning Xu; Ming-Xia Zheng; Xuan Zhou; Yong Peng; Jia-Fu Wei; Yuan Feng; Mao Chen
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Optimization of the method of measuring left ventricular end-diastolic diameter in cardiac magnetic resonance as a predictor of left ventricular enlargement.

Authors:  Paweł Gać; Łukasz Waszczuk; Jacek Kurcz; Rafał Poręba
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 4.996

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.