Why the study?
Some patients with bicuspid aortic valve develop aortic dissection without meeting current surgical intervention thresholds, highlighting the need for specific biomarkers to aid risk stratification.
Do 4-D imaging and circulating biomarkers aid in risk stratification for aortopathy in patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve?
Do 4-D imaging and circulating biomarkers aid in risk stratification for aortopathy in patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve?
Emerging 4-D CMR imaging and circulating biomarkers may improve risk stratification for aortic dissection in BAV patients who do not meet current surgical diameter thresholds.
Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV) is the most prevalent congenital heart defect with an autosomal dominant inheritance. With up to 2% of the general population affected by the condition, mortality remains high likely due to the development of aortopathy which pre-disposes to the development of aortic dissection. Current guidelines focus on surgical management, once a threshold of aorta diameter is surpassed, via routine image surveillance. However, it is recognised that some will develop aortic dissection without meeting these requirements for surgical intervention. Recent literature has begun to address the need for potential biomarkers specific to aortopathy in the BAV population to aid in risk stratification. Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging has paved the way to the development of imaging measurements such as wall shear stress and reverse flow which aid in the assessment of aberrant blood flow contributing to aortopathy in the BAV group. Differing levels of plasma biomarkers such as matrix metalloproteinases and microRNA have also been associated with aortopathy development furthering insight into the cellular mechanisms involved in aortic vascular matrix remodelling. This article will provide an overview of the recent research into prospective 4-D imaging and circulating biomarkers that have been studied and potential areas of future work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iskandar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: