Key result
Bicuspid aortic valve models demonstrated an asymmetrical and higher maximum systolic flow velocity (5.5 to 5.7 m/s) compared to tricuspid aortic valve models (2.6 m/s).
Why the study?
Does bicuspid aortic valve geometry alter ascending aortic flow velocity and wall shear stress compared to tricuspid aortic valve?
Population
Computational surface models of aortic root and ascending aorta obtained from magnetic resonance images of…
Comparison
Bicuspid aortic valve configuration vs Tricuspid aortic valve configuration
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Supports hemodynamic contributions to bicuspid aortopathy; leaves open translation to patient aneurysm risk without clinical validation.
Observational (n=14)
Does bicuspid aortic valve geometry alter ascending aortic flow velocity and wall shear stress compared to tricuspid aortic valve?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.7% vs 2.6%
Computational modeling demonstrates that bicuspid aortic valve geometry causes asymmetrical flow and increased wall shear stress in the ascending aorta, supporting hemodynamic contributions to aneurysm formation.
Viscardi et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Bicuspid aortic valve (n=14). Bicuspid aortic valve geometry vs. Tricuspid aortic valve geometry was evaluated on Maximum blood flow velocity at systole. Bicuspid aortic valve models demonstrated an asymmetrical and higher maximum systolic flow velocity (5.5 to 5.7 m/s) compared to tricuspid aortic valve models (2.6 m/s).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: