Key result
Bicuspid aortic valve was not associated with worse mid-term outcomes after aortic valve repair compared to tricuspid valve, with similar 3-year freedom from reoperation (90% vs 89%, p=0.456).
Why the study?
Does bicuspid valve morphology increase the risk of adverse outcomes compared to tricuspid valve morphology in patients undergoing aortic valve repair?
Cohort (n=100)
Does bicuspid valve morphology increase the risk of adverse outcomes compared to tricuspid valve morphology in patients undergoing aortic valve repair?
Absolute Event Rate: 90% vs 89%
p-value: p=0.456
Mid-term outcomes after aortic valve repair are comparable between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves, suggesting bicuspid morphology is not a risk factor for repair failure.
BAV repair shows comparable mid-term durability to TAV repair; leaves open whether this extends to long-term outcomes or broader populations.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze short- and mid-term results after aortic valve (AV) repair with particular regard to the impact of valve cuspidity (bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve). METHODS: One hundred patients with aortic regurgitation (AR) undergoing aortic valve repair between November 2007 and October 2012 were included in the study. Sixty patients had bicuspid AV (BAV group; 11 females) and 40 patients had tricuspid AV (TAV group; 13 females). AR > grade 2 was present in 47 (78%) patients in the BAV and in 35 (88%) patients in the TAV group. Follow-up was complete in 100% and median was 25 months. RESULTS: Isolated aortic valve repair was performed in 27 (45%) of BAV patients and in six (15%) of TAV patients. Replacement of the ascending aorta and/or aortic root was performed in 33 (55%) of BAV patients and in 34 (86%) of TAV patients. There was no death within 30 days postoperatively, while two patients died (TAV group) during the follow-up period. There was no statistical difference between BAV and TAV groups with regard to the survival (100 ± 0% vs. 95 ± 4%, p = 0.102), the three-year freedom from AV-related reoperation (90 ± 5% vs. 89 ± 6%, p = 0.456), and the three-year freedom from AR grade > 2 (86 ± 6% vs. 82 ± 7%, p = 0.866), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no difference in mid-term results after regurgitant bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve repair, suggesting that bicuspid valve may not be a risk factor for aortic valve repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holubec et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Aortic regurgitation (n=100). Bicuspid aortic valve vs. Tricuspid aortic valve was evaluated on Three-year freedom from AV-related reoperation (p=0.456). Bicuspid aortic valve was not associated with worse mid-term outcomes after aortic valve repair compared to tricuspid valve, with similar 3-year freedom from reoperation (90% vs 89%, p=0.456).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: