Aims: To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results: An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68% male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10%, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm2/m2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12%, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66%, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78%, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm2/m2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79%, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50% [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm2/m2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion: In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Aims: To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results: An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosispatients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68% male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10%, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm2/m2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12%, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66%, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78%, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm2/m2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79%, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50% [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm2/m2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion: In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ilona Saraieva; Athanase Benetos; Carlos Labat; Anders Franco-Cereceda; Magnus Bäck; Simon Toupance Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Anvesha Singh; Tarique Al Musa; Thomas A Treibel; Vassiliou S Vassiliou; Gabriella Captur; Calvin Chin; Laura E Dobson; Silvia Pica; Margaret Loudon; Tamir Malley; Marzia Rigolli; James Robert John Foley; Petra Bijsterveld; Graham R Law; Marc Richard Dweck; Saul G Myerson; Sanjay K Prasad; James C Moon; John P Greenwood; Gerry P McCann Journal: Heart Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: S Nordmeyer; C B Lee; L Goubergrits; C Knosalla; F Berger; V Falk; N Ghorbani; H Hireche-Chikaoui; M Zhu; S Kelle; T Kuehne; M Kelm Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Michelle S Lim; Geoff Strange; David Playford; Simon Stewart; David S Celermajer Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 5.501