Key result
Reduction ascending aortoplasty yielded excellent long-term outcomes, with no significant difference in 10-year freedom from cardiac death between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves (97.8% vs. 94.7%, p=0.518).
Why the study?
Does the presence of a bicuspid aortic valve affect clinical outcomes and risk of redilatation after reduction ascending aortoplasty compared to a tricuspid aortic valve?
Cohort (n=88)
No
Does the presence of a bicuspid aortic valve affect clinical outcomes and risk of redilatation after reduction ascending aortoplasty compared to a tricuspid aortic valve?
Absolute Event Rate: 97.8% vs 94.7%
p-value: p=0.518
Reduction ascending aortoplasty can be performed safely with acceptable long-term outcomes in patients with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic valve disease, regardless of whether they have a bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports reduction aortoplasty across valve types; leaves open randomized confirmation of durability.
Hwang et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Ascending aortic aneurysm combined with aortic valve disease (n=88). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) was evaluated on 10-year freedom from cardiac death (p=0.518). Reduction ascending aortoplasty yielded excellent long-term outcomes, with no significant difference in 10-year freedom from cardiac death between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves (97.8% vs. 94.7%, p=0.518).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: