Why the study?
Aortic valve repair has developed significantly over the last two decades, prompting a review of valve-sparing treatment strategies for bicuspid and unicuspid aortic valve disease.
Does aortic valve repair improve long-term outcomes compared to conventional valve replacement in adults with congenital aortic valve disease?
Does aortic valve repair improve long-term outcomes compared to conventional valve replacement in adults with congenital aortic valve disease?
Aortic valve repair is an increasingly established and advantageous treatment option over conventional valve replacement for young adults with congenital aortic valve disease, as it avoids the long-term risks of prosthetic valves.
Valve-sparing repair may be feasible in experienced ACHD centers for BAV/UAV; leaves open need for prospective durability data.
Aortic valve repair in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) went through a major development during the last two decades to become an increasingly established treatment option in experienced heart valve repair centers. This mini-review addresses valve-sparing treatment strategies in the two most common clinical entities of patients with adult congenital aortic valve disease, namely those presenting with bicuspid (BAV) and unicuspid (UAV) aortic valve disease. Both diseases are integral components of the continuum of congenital aortic valve diseases and represent one of the most common reasons of cardiovascular morbidity in young and otherwise healthy adult patients. The review will highlight the most important advantages of aortic valve sparing procedures as compared to the conventional valve replacement strategy. New treatment aspects will be reviewed including minimally-invasive surgical approaches for aortic valve repair as well as modern protocols of enhanced perioperative recovery which will potentially improve the perioperative recovery and quality of life of the patients undergoing valve-sparing surgical procedures in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Girdauskas et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: