Key result
BAV morphology shows no significant increase in postoperative aortic dissection or reintervention risk vs TAV.
Why the study?
The evolution of aortic dimensions and risk of major aortic events after valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve disease remained uncertain.
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology increase postoperative aortic growth rate or the risk of aortic dissection or reintervention compared to tricuspid aortic valve in adults undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Meta-Analysis
Does bicuspid aortic valve morphology increase postoperative aortic growth rate or the risk of aortic dissection or reintervention compared to tricuspid aortic valve in adults undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Relative Risk: 1.34 (95% CI 0.63–2.83)
p-value: p=0.44
Postoperative aortic growth and major aortic event rates are comparable between BAV and TAV patients after isolated valve replacement, challenging the assumption that bicuspid morphology intrinsically accelerates postoperative aortopathy.
Comparable aortic growth and events after valve replacement support equivalent surveillance in BAV and TAV; leaves open need for individualized risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is associated with premature valve dysfunction and progressive aortic dilation, potentially leading to dissection. The evolution of aortic dimensions after valve replacement remains uncertain, particularly compared with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare postoperative aortic growth and the risk of major aortic events between BAV and TAV patients. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science (from inception to April 2025) identified prospective and retrospective cohort studies including adult patients with BAV or TAV undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVI) aortic valve replacement. Studies were required to report longitudinal data on aortic growth rate (mm/year) or the incidence of aortic dissection or reintervention; those with concomitant aortic surgery were excluded. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: =82.6%). Meta-regression confirmed that age differences between BAV and TAV cohorts did not modify the overall neutral effect on aortic growth rate. Subgroup analyses showed similar findings across study designs, but small differences in procedure types (SAVR MD 0.21 mm/year, p=0.07; TAVI MD -0.04 mm/year, p=0.53; p=0.02 for SAVR vs. TAVI differences). No significant differences were found in the risk of aortic dissection (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.63-2.83; p=0.44) or aortic reintervention (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.56-1.61; p=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative aortic growth and event rates were comparable between BAV and TAV patients after valve replacement. These results challenge the long-standing assumption that bicuspid morphology intrinsically accelerates postoperative aortopathy in all patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pedro et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valve disease. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) was evaluated on Aortic dissection (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.63-2.83, p=0.44). Bicuspid aortic valve morphology did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative aortic dissection (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.63-2.83; p=0.44) or reintervention compared to tricuspid valves.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: