Why the study?
To comprehensively explore contemporary differences between bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valve patients with chronic haemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation.
Does bicuspid aortic valve anatomy compared to tricuspid aortic valve anatomy affect survival and surgical incidence in patients with chronic moderate-severe aortic regurgitation?
Does bicuspid aortic valve anatomy compared to tricuspid aortic valve anatomy affect survival and surgical incidence in patients with chronic moderate-severe aortic regurgitation?
The apparent survival advantage of bicuspid over tricuspid aortic valve patients with chronic significant aortic regurgitation is primarily driven by their younger age rather than valve anatomy.
Age confounds unadjusted survival differences in BAV-AR versus TAV-AR; leaves open whether valve anatomy independently influences outcomes or surgical timing in chronic AR.
Objective To comprehensively explore contemporary differences between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients with chronic haemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation (AR). Methods Consecutive patients with chronic ≥moderate-severe AR from a tertiary referral centre (2006–2017) were included. All-cause mortality, surgical indications and aortic valve surgery (AVS) were analysed. Results Of 798 patients (296 BAV-AR, age 46±14 years; 502 TAV-AR, age 67±14 years, p<0.0001) followed for 5.5 (IQR: 2.9–9.2) years, 403 underwent AVS (repair in 96) and 154 died during follow-up. The 8-year AVS incidence was 60%±3% versus 53%±3% for BAV-AR and TAV-AR, respectively (p=0.014). The unadjusted (real-life) 8-year total survival was 93%±7% versus 71%±2% for BAV-AR and TAV-AR, respectively (p<0.0001), and became statistically insignificant after sole adjustment for age (p=0.14). The within-group relative risk of death in BAV-AR patients demonstrated a large age-dependent increase (two fold at 50–55 years, up to 10-fold at 70 years). The presence of baseline symptoms was significantly associated with death for both BAV-AR (p=0.039) and TAV-AR (p<0.0001), but the strength of the association decreased with age adjustment for BAV-AR (age-adjusted HR 2.43 (0.92–6.39), p=0.07) and not for TAV-AR (age-adjusted HR, 2.3 (1.6–3.3), p<0.0001). As compared with general population, TAV-AR exhibited baseline excess risk which further increased at left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <60% and left ventricular end-systolic dimension index (LVESDi) >20 mm/m 2 ; similar thresholds were observed for BAV-AR patients. Conclusion BAV-AR patients were two decades younger than TAV-AR and underwent AVS more frequently, resulting in a considerable real-life survival advantage for BAV-AR that was determined primarily by age and not valve anatomy. Pragmatically, regardless of valve anatomy, patients with haemodynamically significant AR and age >50–55 years require a low-threshold for surgical referral to prevent symptom development where LVEF <60% and LVESDi >20 mm/m 2 seem appropriate referral thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: