Diagnostic Accuracy of Echocardiography and Intraoperative Surgical Inspection of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve

Brody D. Slostad, Chance M. Witt, Patrick W. O'Leary, Joseph Maleszewski, Christopher G. Scott, Joseph A. Dearani, Patricia Pellikka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare malformation that is often difficult to distinguish from a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with commissural fusion by echocardiography or intraoperative surgical inspection. This study assessed the accuracy of intraoperative surgical inspection and two-dimensional echocardiography in diagnosing UAV compared to a gold standard of pathological diagnosis. The Mayo Clinic echocardiographic database, tissue registry database and electronic medical record were searched for all patients assigned a diagnosis of UAV by any technique. Transthoracic (TTE), transesophageal (TEE) echocardiographic, and surgical diagnoses were compared to pathological diagnosis as the standard. A clinical diagnosis of UAV was applied to 380 patients by 1 or more method and in 196 (52%) a pathologic evaluation was available to compare to the clinical description given by TTE, TEE, or surgical inspection. Of these 196 patients, only 58 (30%) had a pathological diagnosis of UAV; the majority were found to be BAVs by pathologic evaluation (n = 132, 67%). For diagnosing UAV, the sensitivity and specificity were 15% and 87% for TTE, 28%, and 82% for TEE, and 52% and 51% for surgical inspection, respectively. Valves with bicuspid morphology and extensive commissural fusion were frequently misclassified as UAV by all methods. In conclusion, intraoperative surgical inspection and echocardiography have limitations for diagnosing UAV due to difficulties in accurately assigning a correct morphological diagnosis, which suggests that the current understanding of the natural history of UAV may be inaccurate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Echocardiography
Databases
Electronic Health Records
Natural History
Mitral Valve
Registries
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Diagnostic Accuracy of Echocardiography and Intraoperative Surgical Inspection of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve. / Slostad, Brody D.; Witt, Chance M.; O'Leary, Patrick W.; Maleszewski, Joseph; Scott, Christopher G.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Pellikka, Patricia.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{097c80f671c643798088a586094ba29e,
title = "Diagnostic Accuracy of Echocardiography and Intraoperative Surgical Inspection of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve",
abstract = "Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare malformation that is often difficult to distinguish from a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with commissural fusion by echocardiography or intraoperative surgical inspection. This study assessed the accuracy of intraoperative surgical inspection and two-dimensional echocardiography in diagnosing UAV compared to a gold standard of pathological diagnosis. The Mayo Clinic echocardiographic database, tissue registry database and electronic medical record were searched for all patients assigned a diagnosis of UAV by any technique. Transthoracic (TTE), transesophageal (TEE) echocardiographic, and surgical diagnoses were compared to pathological diagnosis as the standard. A clinical diagnosis of UAV was applied to 380 patients by 1 or more method and in 196 (52{\%}) a pathologic evaluation was available to compare to the clinical description given by TTE, TEE, or surgical inspection. Of these 196 patients, only 58 (30{\%}) had a pathological diagnosis of UAV; the majority were found to be BAVs by pathologic evaluation (n = 132, 67{\%}). For diagnosing UAV, the sensitivity and specificity were 15{\%} and 87{\%} for TTE, 28{\%}, and 82{\%} for TEE, and 52{\%} and 51{\%} for surgical inspection, respectively. Valves with bicuspid morphology and extensive commissural fusion were frequently misclassified as UAV by all methods. In conclusion, intraoperative surgical inspection and echocardiography have limitations for diagnosing UAV due to difficulties in accurately assigning a correct morphological diagnosis, which suggests that the current understanding of the natural history of UAV may be inaccurate.",
author = "Slostad, {Brody D.} and Witt, {Chance M.} and O'Leary, {Patrick W.} and Joseph Maleszewski and Scott, {Christopher G.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Patricia Pellikka",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.12.010",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic Accuracy of Echocardiography and Intraoperative Surgical Inspection of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve

AU - Slostad, Brody D.

AU - Witt, Chance M.

AU - O'Leary, Patrick W.

AU - Maleszewski, Joseph

AU - Scott, Christopher G.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Pellikka, Patricia

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare malformation that is often difficult to distinguish from a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with commissural fusion by echocardiography or intraoperative surgical inspection. This study assessed the accuracy of intraoperative surgical inspection and two-dimensional echocardiography in diagnosing UAV compared to a gold standard of pathological diagnosis. The Mayo Clinic echocardiographic database, tissue registry database and electronic medical record were searched for all patients assigned a diagnosis of UAV by any technique. Transthoracic (TTE), transesophageal (TEE) echocardiographic, and surgical diagnoses were compared to pathological diagnosis as the standard. A clinical diagnosis of UAV was applied to 380 patients by 1 or more method and in 196 (52%) a pathologic evaluation was available to compare to the clinical description given by TTE, TEE, or surgical inspection. Of these 196 patients, only 58 (30%) had a pathological diagnosis of UAV; the majority were found to be BAVs by pathologic evaluation (n = 132, 67%). For diagnosing UAV, the sensitivity and specificity were 15% and 87% for TTE, 28%, and 82% for TEE, and 52% and 51% for surgical inspection, respectively. Valves with bicuspid morphology and extensive commissural fusion were frequently misclassified as UAV by all methods. In conclusion, intraoperative surgical inspection and echocardiography have limitations for diagnosing UAV due to difficulties in accurately assigning a correct morphological diagnosis, which suggests that the current understanding of the natural history of UAV may be inaccurate.

AB - Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) is a rare malformation that is often difficult to distinguish from a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with commissural fusion by echocardiography or intraoperative surgical inspection. This study assessed the accuracy of intraoperative surgical inspection and two-dimensional echocardiography in diagnosing UAV compared to a gold standard of pathological diagnosis. The Mayo Clinic echocardiographic database, tissue registry database and electronic medical record were searched for all patients assigned a diagnosis of UAV by any technique. Transthoracic (TTE), transesophageal (TEE) echocardiographic, and surgical diagnoses were compared to pathological diagnosis as the standard. A clinical diagnosis of UAV was applied to 380 patients by 1 or more method and in 196 (52%) a pathologic evaluation was available to compare to the clinical description given by TTE, TEE, or surgical inspection. Of these 196 patients, only 58 (30%) had a pathological diagnosis of UAV; the majority were found to be BAVs by pathologic evaluation (n = 132, 67%). For diagnosing UAV, the sensitivity and specificity were 15% and 87% for TTE, 28%, and 82% for TEE, and 52% and 51% for surgical inspection, respectively. Valves with bicuspid morphology and extensive commissural fusion were frequently misclassified as UAV by all methods. In conclusion, intraoperative surgical inspection and echocardiography have limitations for diagnosing UAV due to difficulties in accurately assigning a correct morphological diagnosis, which suggests that the current understanding of the natural history of UAV may be inaccurate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059938070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059938070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.12.010

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.12.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 30658920

AN - SCOPUS:85059938070

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

ER -