Key result
BAV linked to ~74% higher risk of new LBBB vs. TAV after SAVR.
Why the study?
The incidence and prognostic implications of new-onset conduction disturbances after SAVR comparing bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, including BAV subtypes, were not well established.
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology increase the risk of new-onset conduction disturbances and mortality compared to tricuspid aortic valve morphology in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=1,147)
No
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology increase the risk of new-onset conduction disturbances and mortality compared to tricuspid aortic valve morphology in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Odds Ratio: 1.74 (95% CI 1.06–2.86)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.7% vs 5.7%
p-value: p=0.029
In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, bicuspid aortic valve morphology is associated with a higher risk of new-onset conduction disturbances compared to tricuspid morphology, and new-onset LBBB independently predicts increased long-term all-cause mortality.
Bicuspid morphology may warrant heightened post-SAVR conduction monitoring; leaves open whether morphology-specific strategies improve outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the incidence and prognostic implications of new-onset conduction disturbances after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortic stenosis (AS) versus patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) AS (ie, BAV-AS and TAV-AS, respectively). Additionally, the study included stratification of BAV patients according to subtype. METHODS: In this cohort study, the incidence of postoperative third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block with subsequent permanent pacemaker requirement and new-onset left bundle-branch block (LBBB) was investigated in 1147 consecutive patients without preoperative conduction disorder who underwent isolated SAVR (with or without ascending aortic surgery) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2022. The groups were stratified by aortic valve morphology (BAV, n=589; TAV, n=558). The outcomes of interests were new-onset third-degree AV block or new-onset LBBB during the index hospitalization. The impact of new-onset postoperative conduction disturbances on survival was investigated in BAV-AS and TAV-AS patients during a median follow-up of 8.2 years. BAV morphology was further categorized according to the Sievers and Schmidtke classification system (possible in 307 BAV-AS patients) to explore association between BAV subtypes and new-onset conduction disturbances after SAVR. RESULTS: The overall incidence of third-degree AV block and new-onset LBBB after SAVR was 4.5% and 7.8%, respectively. BAV-AS patients had a higher incidence of both new-onset third-degree AV block (6.5% versus 2.5%; P =0.001) and new-onset LBBB (9.7% versus 5.7%; P =0.013) compared with TAV-AS patients. New-onset LBBB was associated with an increased all-cause mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.12–2.30]; P =0.011), whereas new-onset third-degree AV block was not associated with worse prognosis. Subgroup analysis of the BAV cohort revealed that BAV-AS patients with fusion of the right- and non-coronary cusps had the highest risk of new-onset third-degree AV block (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.33 [95% CI, 3.31–20.97]; P <0.001, with TAV as reference group) and new-onset LBBB (aOR, 4.03 [95% CI, 1.84–8.82]; P <0.001, with TAV as reference group), whereas no significant association was observed for the other BAV subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset LBBB after SAVR is associated with increased all-cause mortality during follow-up, and is more frequent complication in BAV AS patients compared with TAV-AS patients. BAV-AS patients with fusion of the right- and non-coronary cusps have an increased risk for conduction disturbances after SAVR. This should be taken into consideration when managing these patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wedin et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis (n=1,147). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology was evaluated on New-onset left bundle-branch block (LBBB) during index hospitalization (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.06-2.86, p=0.029). Bicuspid aortic valve morphology was associated with a significantly higher incidence of new-onset left bundle-branch block (9.7% vs 5.7%) and third-degree AV block (6.5% vs 2.5%) after surgical aortic valve replacement compared to tricuspid aortic valve morphology.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: