Key result
Ascending aortic dilatation with stenotic bicuspid aortic valve progressed significantly faster after aortic valve replacement compared to tricuspid aortic valve (1.02 vs -0.075 mm/year, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the progression rate of mildly dilated ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement differ between patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves?
Population
28 patients with mild ascending aortic dilatation who underwent aortic valve replacement without graft…
Comparison
Aortic valve replacement in patients with… vs Aortic valve replacement in patients with…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
BAV: 2.5±1.9 years; TAV: 2.2±1.8 years
Authors
Loading...
May warrant closer post-AVR aortic surveillance in stenotic BAV; leaves open whether thresholds for prophylactic intervention should differ.
Cohort (n=28)
Does the progression rate of mildly dilated ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement differ between patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.02% vs -0.075%
p-value: p=<0.001
Ascending aortic dilatation in patients with stenotic bicuspid aortic valves continues to progress asymmetrically even after isolated aortic valve replacement, unlike in patients with tricuspid aortic valves.
Hattori et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis with mild ascending aortic dilatation (n=28). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) was evaluated on Annual progression rate of the longest diameter of the ascending aorta (mm/year) (p=<0.001). Ascending aortic dilatation with stenotic bicuspid aortic valve progressed significantly faster after aortic valve replacement compared to tricuspid aortic valve (1.02 vs -0.075 mm/year, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: