Comparison of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve repair.

Abstract

OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair. METHODSWe assessed mortality, freedom from reoperation and the rate of aortic valve regurgitation recurrence. Mortality in both groups was compared with expected survival, and risk factors for reoperation were identified.RESULTSFrom January 2010 to April 2020, a total of 368 elective aortic valve repair procedures were performed, including 223 (60.6%) in patients with TAV. The perioperative mortality was 0.7% in the BAV group and 3.6% in the TAV group (P = 0.079). Estimated survival at 5 years in the BAV versus TAV group was 97 ± 3% vs 80 ± 6%, respectively (P < 0.001). Freedom from reoperation at 5 years in the TAV versus BAV group was 96 ± 3% vs 93 ± 4%, respectively (P = 0.28). Grade 2 or more aortic valve regurgitation was noted in 9.9% of BAV patients and 11% of TAV patients (P = 0.66). Reoperation was predicted by cusp perforation [hazard ratio 15.86 (4.44–56.61); P < 0.001], the use of pericardial patch [hazard ratio 8.58 (1.96–37.53); P = 0.004] and aortic valve annulus diameter >27.5 mm [hazard ratio 3.07 (0.99–9.58); P = 0.053].CONCLUSIONSBAV repair is as durable as TAV repair. BAV is not a predictor of a higher rate of reoperations. BAV repair yields survival comparable to expected. Cusp perforation, aortic valve annulus diameter >27.5 mm and the use of pericardial patch adversely impact long-term outcome of aortic valve repair.