Literature DB >> 30658920

Diagnostic Accuracy of Echocardiography and Intraoperative Surgical Inspection of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve.

Brody D Slostad1, Chance M Witt2, Patrick W O'Leary3, Joseph J Maleszewski4, Christopher G Scott5, Joseph A Dearani6, Patricia A Pellikka2.   

Abstract

Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare malformation that is often difficult to distinguish from a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with commissural fusion by echocardiography or intraoperative surgical inspection. This study assessed the accuracy of intraoperative surgical inspection and two-dimensional echocardiography in diagnosing UAV compared to a gold standard of pathological diagnosis. The Mayo Clinic echocardiographic database, tissue registry database and electronic medical record were searched for all patients assigned a diagnosis of UAV by any technique. Transthoracic (TTE), transesophageal (TEE) echocardiographic, and surgical diagnoses were compared to pathological diagnosis as the standard. A clinical diagnosis of UAV was applied to 380 patients by 1 or more method and in 196 (52%) a pathologic evaluation was available to compare to the clinical description given by TTE, TEE, or surgical inspection. Of these 196 patients, only 58 (30%) had a pathological diagnosis of UAV; the majority were found to be BAVs by pathologic evaluation (n = 132, 67%). For diagnosing UAV, the sensitivity and specificity were 15% and 87% for TTE, 28%, and 82% for TEE, and 52% and 51% for surgical inspection, respectively. Valves with bicuspid morphology and extensive commissural fusion were frequently misclassified as UAV by all methods. In conclusion, intraoperative surgical inspection and echocardiography have limitations for diagnosing UAV due to difficulties in accurately assigning a correct morphological diagnosis, which suggests that the current understanding of the natural history of UAV may be inaccurate.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30658920     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.12.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

Review 1.  Narrative review of the contemporary surgical treatment of unicuspid aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Maria von Stumm; Tatjana Sequeira-Gross; Johannes Petersen; Shiho Naito; Lisa Müller; Christoph Sinning; Evaldas Girdauskas
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2021-04

Review 2.  Considerations in the Surgical Management of Unicuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Andrew J Gorton; Eric P Anderson; Jonathan A Reimer; Khaled Abdelhady; Raed Sawaqed; Malek G Massad
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 1.655

3.  Comparison of bicuspidization and Ross procedure in the treatment of unicuspid aortic valve disease in adults - Insight from the AVIATOR registry.

Authors:  Ján Gofus; Mikita Karalko; Petr Fila; Jiří Ondrášek; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Adrian Kolesár; Emmanuel Lansac; Ismail El-Hamamsy; Laurent de Kerchove; Christian Dinges; Jaroslav Hlubocký; Petr Němec; Martin Tuna; Jan Vojáček
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-09-08

Review 4.  Which Aortic Valve Can Be Surgically Reconstructed?

Authors:  Karen B Abeln; Christian Giebels; Tristan Ehrlich; Jan M Federspiel; Hans-Joachim Schäfers
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 2.931

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.