Why the study?
Calcified or fibrotic cusps complicate successful aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and aortic regurgitation, making aortic valve neocuspidization an alternative treatment to prosthetic valve replacement.
Does aortic valve neocuspidization improve early hemodynamics compared to aortic valve repair in patients with regurgitant bicuspid aortic valves?
Cohort (n=83)
Does aortic valve neocuspidization improve early hemodynamics compared to aortic valve repair in patients with regurgitant bicuspid aortic valves?
AVNeo with autologous pericardium provides superior early hemodynamic profiles (lower gradients, larger orifice area) compared to AV-repair in patients with regurgitant bicuspid aortic valves, with similar functional regurgitation outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AVNeo was associated with superior early hemodynamics versus repair in regurgitant bicuspid aortic valves; leaves open durability and long-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Calcified or fibrotic cusps in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and aortic regurgitation complicate successful aortic valve (AV)-repair. Aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) with autologous pericardium offers an alternative treatment to prosthetic valve replacement. We compared patients with regurgitant bicuspid valves undergoing AV-repair or AVNeo. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients with regurgitant bicuspid valves undergoing AV-repair or AVNeo. We focused on residual regurgitation, pressure gradients and effective orifice area, determined preoperatively and at discharge. RESULTS: AV-repair was performed in 61 patients (mean age: 43.2 ± 11.3 years) and AVNeo in 22 (45.7 ± 14.1). Prior to the operation patients of the AV-repair group showed severe regurgitation in 38 cases (62.3%) and moderate in 23 (37.6%); in the AVNeo group, all patients exhibited severe regurgitation. Postoperatively, 57 patients (93.4%) patients had no or mild regurgitation after AV-repair and 21 (95.4%) after AVNeo. In AVNeo-patients, peak (10.6 ± 3.1 mmHg vs 22.7 ± 11 mmHg, P< 0.001) and mean pressure gradients (5.9 ± 2 mmHg vs 13.8 ± 7.3 mmHg, P < 0.001) were significantly lower and the orifice area significantly larger (2.9 ± 0.8 cm2 vs 1.9 ± 0.7 cm2, P < 0.001) compared to repair. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to AV-repair, patients AVNeo showed lower mean pressure gradients and larger orifice areas at discharge. The functional result was not different.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prinzing et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Regurgitant bicuspid aortic valves (n=83). Aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) vs. Aortic valve repair was evaluated on Mean pressure gradient at discharge (mmHg) (p=< 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: