Key result
Circulating biomarkers were systematically reviewed for their potential value in predicting the natural evolution of aortopathy in individuals with bicuspid aortic valve.
Why the study?
Do circulating biomarkers predict the natural evolution of aortopathy in individuals with bicuspid aortic valve?
Systematic Review
Do circulating biomarkers predict the natural evolution of aortopathy in individuals with bicuspid aortic valve?
This systematic review aims to evaluate the value of circulating biomarkers for risk stratification in bicuspid aortic valve-associated aortopathy, addressing the limitations of conventional imaging.
Biomarker integration may refine BAV aortopathy risk stratification beyond imaging; leaves open whether it improves outcomes in prospective cohorts.
Traditional risk stratification model of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortopathy is based on measurement of maximal cross-sectional aortic diameter, definition of proximal aortic shape, and aortic stiffness/elasticity parameters. However, conventional imaging-based criteria are unable to provide reliable information regarding the risk stratification in BAV aortopathy, especially considering the heterogeneous nature of BAV disease. Given those limitations of conventional imaging, there is a growing clinical interest to use circulating biomarkers in the screening process for thoracic aortic aneurysms as well as in the risk-assessment algorithms. We aimed to systematically review currently available biomarkers, which may be of value to predict the natural evolution of aortopathy in individuals with BAV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naito et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortopathy. Circulating biomarkers was evaluated on Natural evolution of aortopathy. Circulating biomarkers were systematically reviewed for their potential value in predicting the natural evolution of aortopathy in individuals with bicuspid aortic valve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: