Key result
Unicuspid aortic valve was associated with more severe aortic stenosis, higher gradients, and smaller valve area compared to bicuspid aortic valve (all P < .05), with similar aortic dimensions.
Why the study?
Do patients with unicuspid aortic valves have different clinical and echocardiographic characteristics compared to matched patients with bicuspid aortic valves?
Case-Control (n=34)
Yes
Do patients with unicuspid aortic valves have different clinical and echocardiographic characteristics compared to matched patients with bicuspid aortic valves?
p-value: p=< .05
Unicuspid aortic valve appears to be an extreme phenotype of the bicuspid aortic valve spectrum, characterized by more accelerated valve degeneration and stenosis but similar aortic enlargement patterns.
May support viewing unicuspid aortic valve as more aggressive bicuspid phenotype; extends spectrum concept but remains hypothesis-generating.
BACKGROUND: Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare disorder, often difficult to distinguish from bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). BAV and UAV share valve pathology such as the presence of a raphe, leaflet fusion, aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and/or ascending aortic dilatation, but a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of patients with UAV and BAV has not been previously performed. METHODS: We investigated UAV and BAV patients at an early stage of disease included in GenTAC, a national registry of genetically related aortic aneurysms and associated cardiac conditions. Clinical and echocardiographic data from the GenTAC Registry were compared between 17 patients with UAV and 17 matched-controls with BAV. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics including demographics, clinical findings including family history of BAV and aortic aneurysm/coarctation, and echocardiographic variables were similar between BAV and UAV patients; aortic stenosis was more common and more severe in patients with UAV. This was evidenced by higher mean and peak gradient, smaller aortic valve area, and more advanced valvular degeneration (all P < .05). There were no significant differences in aortic dimensions, with a similar pattern of enlargement of the ascending aorta. CONCLUSIONS: The similar baseline characteristics with more accelerated aortic valve degeneration and stenosis suggest that UAV represents an extreme in the spectrum of BAV syndromes. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider application of recommendations for the management of patients with BAV to those with the rarer UAV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krepp et al. (2017) conducted a case-control in Unicuspid aortic valve and bicuspid aortic valve (n=34). Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) vs. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) was evaluated on Echocardiographic variables including aortic stenosis severity, gradients, valve area, and aortic dimensions (p=< .05). Unicuspid aortic valve was associated with more severe aortic stenosis, higher gradients, and smaller valve area compared to bicuspid aortic valve (all P < .05), with similar aortic dimensions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: