Key result
Bicuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis was associated with a significantly lower 3-year risk of death or heart failure hospitalization compared to tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.86; P=0.01).
Why the study?
The prognostic value of cardiac damage staging in bicuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (BAV-AS) compared to tricuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (TAV-AS) remains unclear.
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology improve prognosis compared to tricuspid aortic valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Cohort (n=3,365)
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology improve prognosis compared to tricuspid aortic valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Hazard Ratio: 0.53 (95% CI 0.33–0.86)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.9% vs 38.4%
p-value: p=0.01
Patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis present with less advanced cardiac damage and have a better prognosis than those with tricuspid aortic stenosis.
Cardiac damage staging is a validated predictor of outcomes in tricuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (TAV-AS), but its role in bicuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (BAV-AS) remains unclear. We compared baseline characteristics, cardiac damage stages, and clinical outcomes between BAV-AS and TAV-AS patients. We analyzed 3365 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) from the CURRENT AS Registry-2, including 222 with BAV-AS and 3143 with TAV-AS. Cardiac damage stages were classified based on index echocardiographic findings. The primary outcome was a composite of death or heart failure hospitalization. BAV-AS patients were significantly younger and had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities than TAV-AS patients. Despite greater AS severity, BAV-AS patients more often presented with less advanced cardiac damage (stage 0–1: 53% versus 29%, P < 0.001). Among patients aged < 75 years, early-stage cardiac damage was more prevalent in BAV-AS, whereas TAV-AS patients aged < 75 years showed higher rates of advanced cardiac damage. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower in BAV-AS than in TAV-AS (9.9% versus 38.4%, P < 0.001). Adjusted analysis confirmed that BAV-AS remained significantly associated with better outcome (hazard ratio: 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.33–0.86, P = 0.01). BAV-AS patients exhibited more favorable baseline profiles, less advanced cardiac damage, and better prognosis despite greater AS severity, highlighting the prognostic value of cardiac damage staging irrespective of valve morphology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saitoh et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis (n=3,365). Bicuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (BAV-AS) vs. Tricuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis (TAV-AS) was evaluated on Composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.86, p=0.01). Bicuspid aortic valve aortic stenosis was associated with a significantly lower 3-year risk of death or heart failure hospitalization compared to tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.86; P=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: