4.3 Article

Challenges of recognizing bicuspid aortic valve in elderly patients undergoing TAVR

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-019-01704-8

Keywords

Aortic stenosis; Bicuspid aortic valve; Echocardiography; MDCT; TAVR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recognition of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) may be challenging in elderly patients with heavily calcified aortic valves undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In this subset, the diagnostic value of pre-procedural echocardiography in clinical routine is unknown. From a total of 2583 patients undergoing TAVR in our center, we determined the rate of BAV detected by routine echocardiography as documented in the medical records. Pre-procedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images were retrospectively analyzed for the presence of BAV and served as reference standard. Using MDCT criteria, BAV was found in 235 (9.1%) (age 80.1 years [interquartile range 76.4; 83.4], 44.3% female). Of these, only 27/235 (11.5%) had been identified as BAV according to echocardiography reports, whereas 6/2348 (0.3%) with TAV had been wrongly diagnosed as BAV (p < 0.001; sensitivity 11.5%, specificity 99.7%). Correct diagnosis of BAV by echocardiography was more likely when transesophageal echocardiography was available (odds ratio (OR) 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.22; 11.80]; p < 0.001) and the reader was experienced (OR 5.28 [95% CI 1.55; 18.04]; p = 0.008). Furthermore, correct diagnosis of BAV was more likely in bicommissural-type BAV (OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.90; 5.48]; p = 0.08), whereas heavy aortic valve calcification lead to misdiagnosis (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.14; 1.06]; p = 0.07). In elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis that are candidates for TAVR, the presence of BAV may be considerably underestimated when relying solely on routine echocardiography. This underlines the value of MDCT for the screening of BAV in this patient population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available