Article Text

PDF
Contemporary natural history of bicuspid aortic valve disease: a systematic review
  1. Ahmad Masri,
  2. Lars G Svensson,
  3. Brian P Griffin,
  4. Milind Y Desai
  1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Milind Y Desai, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk J1.5, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; desaim2{at}ccf.org

Abstract

We performed a systematic review of the current state of the literature regarding the natural history and outcomes of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). PubMed and the reference lists of the included articles were searched for relevant studies reporting on longitudinal follow-up of BAV cohorts (mean follow-up ≥2 years). Studies limited to patients undergoing surgical interventions were excluded. 13 studies (11 502 patients with 2–16 years of follow-up) met the inclusion criteria. There was a bimodal age distribution (30–40 vs ≥50 years), with a 3:1 male to female ratio. Complications included moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (prevalence 13%–30%), moderate to severe aortic stenosis (12%–37%), infective endocarditis (2%–5%) and aortic dilatation (20%–40%). Aortic dissection or rupture was rare, occurring in 38 patients (0.4%, 27/6446 in native BAV and 11/2232 in post). With current aggressive surveillance and prophylactic surgical interventions, survival in three out of four studies was similar to that of a matched general population. In this systematic review, valvular dysfunction warranting surgical intervention in patients with BAV were common, aortic dissection was rare and, with the current management approach, survival was similar to that of the general population.

  • Bicuspid aortic valve
  • outcomes
  • review

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors AM, BPG, LGS and MYD worked on the draft and revisions and take full responsibility for the paper.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.