Background/Aim: In patients with bicuspid aortic valves, guidelines call for regular follow-up to monitor disease progression and guide timely intervention. We aimed to evaluate how closely these recommendations are followed at a tertiary care center. Methods: This was retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center. Among 48,504 patients who received echocardiograms between 2013-2018, 245 patients were identified to have bicuspid aortic valve. Bivariate analyses compared patient and echocardiographic characteristics between patients who did and did not receive follow-up by a cardiovascular specialist. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 55.2  15.6 years and 30.2% were female. During a median follow-up of 3.5  2.2 years, 72.7% of patients had at least one visit with a cardiovascular specialist after diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valve by echocardiogram. Patients followed by specialists had a higher proportion of follow-up surveillance by echocardiogram (78.7% vs. 34.3%, p< .0001), or by CT or MRI (41.0% vs. 3.0%, p < .0001), and were more likely to undergo valve or aortic surgery compared with patients not followed by specialists. Patients with moderate to severe valvular or aortic pathology (aortic stenosis/regurgitation, dilated ascending aorta) were not more likely to be followed by a cardiovascular specialist or receive follow-up echocardiograms. Conclusions: Follow-up care for patients with bicuspid aortic valve was highly variable, and surveillance imaging was performed sparsely despite guidelines. There is an urgent need for surveillance and clinical follow-up mechanisms to monitor this patient population with increased risk of progressive valvulopathy and aortopathy.

Michael Shang

and 9 more

Background: Thoracic aortic aneurysm is a significant risk factor for aortic dissection and rupture. Guidelines recommend referral of patients to a cardiovascular specialist for periodic surveillance imaging with surgical intervention determined primarily by aneurysm size. We investigated the association between socioeconomic status and surveillance practices in patients with ascending aortic aneurysms. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of 465 consecutive patients diagnosed between 2013-2016 with ascending aortic aneurysm ≥4cm on computed tomography scans. Primary outcomes were clinical follow-up with a cardiovascular specialist and aortic surveillance imaging within 2 years following index scan. We stratified patients into quartiles using the area deprivation index (ADI), a validated percentile measure of 17 variables characterizing socioeconomic status at the census block group level. Competing risks analysis was used to determine interquartile differences in risk of death prior to follow up with a cardiovascular specialist. Results: Lower socioeconomic status was associated with significantly lower rates of surveillance imaging and referral to a cardiovascular specialist. On competing risks regression, the ADI quartile with lowest socioeconomic status had lower hazard of follow-up with a cardiologist or cardiac surgeon prior to death (HR 0.46 [0.34, 0.62], p<0.001). Though there were no differences in aneurysm size at time of surgical repair, patients in the lowest socioeconomic quartile were more frequently symptomatic at surgery than other quartiles (92% vs 23-38%, p<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with lower socioeconomic status receive less timely follow-up imaging and specialist referral for thoracic aortic aneurysms, resulting in surgical intervention only when alarming symptoms are already present.

Michael Shang

and 5 more

Background: Bicuspid aortic valve is the most common congenital heart defect and predisposes patients to developing aortic stenosis more frequently and at a younger age than the general population. However, the influence of bicuspid aortic valve on the rate of progression of aortic stenosis remains unclear. Methods: In 236 patients (177 tricuspid aortic valve, 59 bicuspid aortic valve) matched by initial severity of mild or moderate aortic stenosis, we retrospectively analyzed baseline echocardiogram at diagnosis with latest available follow-up echocardiogram. Baseline comorbidities, annualized progression rate of hemodynamic parameters, and hazard of aortic valve replacement were compared between valve phenotypes. Results: Median echocardiographic follow-up was 2.6 (IQR 1.6-4.2) years. Patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis were significantly older with more frequent comorbid hypertension and congestive heart failure. Median annualized progression rate of mean gradient was 2.3 (IQR 0.6-5.0) mmHg/year vs. 1.5 (IQR 0.5-4.1) mmHg/year (p=0.5), and that of peak velocity was 0.14 (IQR 0-0.31) m/s/year vs. 0.10 (IQR 0.04-0.26) m/s/year (p=0.7) for tricuspid vs. bicuspid aortic valve, respectively. On multivariate analyses, bicuspid aortic valve was not significantly associated with more rapid progression of aortic stenosis. In a stepwise Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline mean gradient, bicuspid aortic valve was associated with increased hazard of aortic valve replacement (HR: 1.7, 95% CI [1.0, 3.0], p=0.049). Conclusion: Bicuspid aortic valve may not significantly predispose patients to more rapid progression of mild or moderate aortic stenosis. Guidelines for echocardiographic surveillance of aortic stenosis need not be influenced by valve phenotype.