Dataset Information

Aortic stiffness in aortic stenosis assessed by cardiovascular MRI: a comparison between bicuspid and tricuspid valves.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To compare aortic size and stiffness parameters on MRI between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS:MRI was performed in 174 patients with asymptomatic moderate-severe AS (mean AVAI 0.57?±?0.14 cm2/m2) and 23 controls on 3T scanners. Valve morphology was available/analysable in 169 patients: 63 BAV (41 type-I, 22 type-II) and 106 TAV. Aortic cross-sectional areas were measured at the level of the pulmonary artery bifurcation. The ascending and descending aorta (AA, DA) distensibility, and pulse wave velocity (PWV) around the aortic arch were calculated. RESULTS:The AA and DA areas were lower in the controls, with no difference in DA distensibility or PWV, but slightly lower AA distensibility than in the patient group. With increasing age, there was a decrease in distensibility and an increase in PWV. After correcting for age, the AA maximum cross-sectional area was higher in bicuspid vs. tricuspid patients (12.97 [11.10, 15.59] vs. 10.06 [8.57, 12.04] cm2, p?

SUBMITTER: Singh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6443917 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aortic stiffness in aortic stenosis assessed by cardiovascular MRI: a comparison between bicuspid and tricuspid valves.

Singh Anvesha A Horsfield Mark A MA Bekele Soliana S Greenwood John P JP Dawson Dana K DK Berry Colin C Hogrefe Kai K Kelly Damian J DJ Houston John G JG Guntur Ramkumar Prasad P Uddin Akhlaque A Suzuki Toru T McCann Gerry P GP

European radiology 20181128 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare aortic size and stiffness parameters on MRI between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients with aortic stenosis (AS).<h4>Methods</h4>MRI was performed in 174 patients with asymptomatic moderate-severe AS (mean AVAI 0.57 ± 0.14 cm<sup>2</sup>/m<sup>2</sup>) and 23 controls on 3T scanners. Valve morphology was available/analysable in 169 patients: 63 BAV (41 type-I, 22 type-II) and 106 TAV. Aortic cross-sectional areas were measured at t ...[more]

PMID: 30488106

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, leading to an increasing number of patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Pivotal randomized trials conducted to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval excluded bicuspid anatomy.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Design, setting, and participantsRegistry-based prospective cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 552 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to November 2018.ExposuresTAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and quality of life assessment.ResultsOf 81 822 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (2726 bicuspid; 79 096 tricuspid), 2691 propensity-score matched pairs of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis were analyzed (median age, 74 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 66-81 years]; 39.1%, women; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 4.9% [4.0%] and 5.1% [4.2%], respectively). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at 30 days (2.6% vs 2.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.04, [95% CI, 0.74-1.47]) and 1 year (10.5% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10]). The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis (2.5% vs 1.6%; HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.33]). The risk of procedural complications requiring open heart surgery was significantly higher in the bicuspid vs tricuspid cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]). There were no significant differences in valve hemodynamics. There were no significant differences in moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days (2.0% vs 2.4%; absolute RD, 0.3% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0.7%]) and 1 year (3.2% vs 2.5%; absolute RD, 0.7% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.7%]). At 1 year there was no significant difference in improvement in quality of life between the groups (difference in improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, -2.4 [95% CI, -5.1 to 0.3]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year mortality but had increased 30-day risk for stroke. Because of the potential for selection bias and the absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Dataset Information

Aortic stiffness in aortic stenosis assessed by cardiovascular MRI: a comparison between bicuspid and tricuspid valves.

Publications

Aortic stiffness in aortic stenosis assessed by cardiovascular MRI: a comparison between bicuspid and tricuspid valves.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure