Key result
After adjustment for age and risk factors, bicuspid aortic valve was independently associated with faster haemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis (Vpeak: β = 0.31, P = 0.02) compared to TAV.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether progression of aortic stenosis differs between patients with bicuspid aortic valve and those with tricuspid aortic valve.
Does bicuspid aortic valve phenotype accelerate the progression of aortic stenosis compared to tricuspid aortic valve in patients with mild-to-moderate AS?
Cohort (n=141)
Does bicuspid aortic valve phenotype accelerate the progression of aortic stenosis compared to tricuspid aortic valve in patients with mild-to-moderate AS?
Effect estimate: β = 0.31
Absolute Event Rate: 16% vs 17%
p-value: p=0.02
In patients with mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis, a bicuspid aortic valve is independently associated with faster hemodynamic and anatomic progression compared to a tricuspid valve when adjusted for age and risk profile.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports closer surveillance in BAV patients with mild-moderate AS; leaves open whether phenotype-specific thresholds should guide timing of intervention.
Shen et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis (n=141). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) was evaluated on 2-year haemodynamic progression of AS (peak aortic jet velocity) (β = 0.31, p=0.02). After adjustment for age and risk factors, bicuspid aortic valve was independently associated with faster haemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis (Vpeak: β = 0.31, P = 0.02) compared to TAV.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: