Key result
This commentary discusses a recent article comparing external annuloplasty and subcommissural annuloplasty as techniques for bicuspid aortic valve repair.
Why the study?
Does external annuloplasty improve outcomes compared to subcommissural annuloplasty in patients with bicuspid aortic valve undergoing repair?
Does external annuloplasty improve outcomes compared to subcommissural annuloplasty in patients with bicuspid aortic valve undergoing repair?
This commentary discusses the comparative techniques of external versus subcommissural annuloplasty for bicuspid aortic valve repair.
Patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) are at increased risk of valvular regurgitation compared to their counterparts with a tri-leaflet aortic valve. There is now increasing emphasis to offer BAV repair to mitigate the risks of prosthesis-related complications, including thromboembolism, hemorrhage and endocarditis, as well as structural valve deterioration and future reoperation with conventional valve replacement, particularly in younger populations. Furthermore, over the preceding two decades, our greater understanding of the functional anatomy of the BAV, pathophysiological mechanisms of BAV insufficiency, and the development of a functional classification of aortic regurgitation have significantly contributed to the evolution of aortic valve reconstructive surgery. In this commentary, we discuss a recent article from the Journal of Cardiac Surgery comparing external annuloplasty and subcommissural annuloplasty as techniques for BAV repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Acharya et al. (2021) conducted an editorial in Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). External annuloplasty vs. Subcommissural annuloplasty was evaluated. This commentary discusses a recent article comparing external annuloplasty and subcommissural annuloplasty as techniques for bicuspid aortic valve repair.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: