Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis

Geoffrey D. Huntley, Jeremy J. Thaden, Said Alsidawi, Hector I Michelena, Joseph Maleszewski, William D. Edwards, Christopher G. Scott, Sorin V. Pislaru, Patricia Pellikka, Kevin L. Greason, Naser M. Ammash, Joseph F. Malouf, Maurice E Sarano, Vuyisile T Nkomo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68% male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10%, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12%, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66%, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78%, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79%, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50% [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-8
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Tricuspid Valve Stenosis
Bicuspid
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Aortic Valve
Tricuspid Valve
Stroke Volume
Survival
Comorbidity
Bioprosthesis
Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Prostheses and Implants

Keywords

  • aortic stenosis
  • aortic valve replacement
  • bicuspid aortic valve
  • comorbidities

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. / Huntley, Geoffrey D.; Thaden, Jeremy J.; Alsidawi, Said; Michelena, Hector I; Maleszewski, Joseph; Edwards, William D.; Scott, Christopher G.; Pislaru, Sorin V.; Pellikka, Patricia; Greason, Kevin L.; Ammash, Naser M.; Malouf, Joseph F.; Sarano, Maurice E; Nkomo, Vuyisile T.

In: European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 3-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Huntley, GD, Thaden, JJ, Alsidawi, S, Michelena, HI, Maleszewski, J, Edwards, WD, Scott, CG, Pislaru, SV, Pellikka, P, Greason, KL, Ammash, NM, Malouf, JF, Sarano, ME & Nkomo, VT 2018, 'Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis', European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex211
Huntley, Geoffrey D. ; Thaden, Jeremy J. ; Alsidawi, Said ; Michelena, Hector I ; Maleszewski, Joseph ; Edwards, William D. ; Scott, Christopher G. ; Pislaru, Sorin V. ; Pellikka, Patricia ; Greason, Kevin L. ; Ammash, Naser M. ; Malouf, Joseph F. ; Sarano, Maurice E ; Nkomo, Vuyisile T. / Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. In: European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 3-8.
@article{82ce7f3344db40ea9b7aa529c1d9c6dc,
title = "Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis",
abstract = "Aims To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68{\%} male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10{\%}, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12{\%}, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66{\%}, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78{\%}, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79{\%}, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50{\%} [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement, bicuspid aortic valve, comorbidities",
author = "Huntley, {Geoffrey D.} and Thaden, {Jeremy J.} and Said Alsidawi and Michelena, {Hector I} and Joseph Maleszewski and Edwards, {William D.} and Scott, {Christopher G.} and Pislaru, {Sorin V.} and Patricia Pellikka and Greason, {Kevin L.} and Ammash, {Naser M.} and Malouf, {Joseph F.} and Sarano, {Maurice E} and Nkomo, {Vuyisile T}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ehjci/jex211",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "3--8",
journal = "European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "2047-2404",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative study of bicuspid vs. tricuspid aortic valve stenosis

AU - Huntley, Geoffrey D.

AU - Thaden, Jeremy J.

AU - Alsidawi, Said

AU - Michelena, Hector I

AU - Maleszewski, Joseph

AU - Edwards, William D.

AU - Scott, Christopher G.

AU - Pislaru, Sorin V.

AU - Pellikka, Patricia

AU - Greason, Kevin L.

AU - Ammash, Naser M.

AU - Malouf, Joseph F.

AU - Sarano, Maurice E

AU - Nkomo, Vuyisile T

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Aims To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68% male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10%, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12%, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66%, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78%, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79%, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50% [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

AB - Aims To examine differences and similarities in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis occurring during the same age and whether any differences impact outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods and results An age-matched cohort of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients was identified from 888 consecutive patients undergoing AVR for severe AS. Mean age 68 ± 6 years; 68% male. Patients with BAV were less likely to have multiple comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >2 (3 vs. 10%, P = 0.007). Indexed aortic valve area (0.44 ± 0.09 vs. 0.42 ± 0.08 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.17) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were similar (62 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 12%, P = 0.12), but E/e' ≥15 (46 vs. 66%, P = 0.0002) was less common in BAV stenosis. A tissue aortic valve prosthesis was more commonly utilized in both groups (81 vs. 78%, P = 0.54). Overall indexed effective orifice area was larger in BAV compared with TAV (1.08 ± 0.33 vs. 0.96 ± 0.25 cm 2 /m 2, P = 0.0008). Five-year survival following AVR was lower in TAV compared with BAV stenosis (61 vs. 79%, P = 0.02). Independent predictors of survival following AVR were LVEF < 50% [hazard ratio (HR): 4.8, P = 0.0005], CCI > 2 (HR: 3.1, P = 0.015), effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (HR: 2.5, P = 0.004), and bioprosthesis (HR: 3.7, P = 0.02). Conclusion In an age-matched cohort, TAV compared with BAV stenosis is associated with greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

KW - aortic stenosis

KW - aortic valve replacement

KW - bicuspid aortic valve

KW - comorbidities

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040048151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040048151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ehjci/jex211

DO - 10.1093/ehjci/jex211

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 3

EP - 8

JO - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 2047-2404

IS - 1

ER -