Key result
Bicuspid aortic valve disease was not associated with worse overall survival (P=0.223) or increased aortic events (2.0% vs 4.1%; P=0.678) compared to tricuspid disease up to 15 years after AVR.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare long-term outcomes and ascending aorta dilatation rates after aortic valve replacement between patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves, and to evaluate risk factors for aortic events.
Does bicuspid aortic valve disease increase the risk of ascending aorta dilatation and mortality compared to tricuspid aortic valve disease in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a dilated ascending aorta?
Cohort (n=259)
Does bicuspid aortic valve disease increase the risk of ascending aorta dilatation and mortality compared to tricuspid aortic valve disease in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a dilated ascending aorta?
p-value: p=0.223
Long-term outcomes and ascending aorta dilatation rates are similar between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve patients up to 15 years after aortic valve replacement, suggesting bicuspid valve morphology itself is not an independent risk factor for late aortic events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Similar dilatation rates and outcomes after AVR in BAV versus TAV; leaves open whether preoperative diameter alone guides surveillance intensity.
Kim et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Dilated ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement (n=259). Bicuspid aortic valve disease vs. Tricuspid aortic valve disease was evaluated on Overall survival up to 15 years postoperatively (p=0.223). Bicuspid aortic valve disease was not associated with worse overall survival (P=0.223) or increased aortic events (2.0% vs 4.1%; P=0.678) compared to tricuspid disease up to 15 years after AVR.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: