4.7 Article

Variability in surveillance practice for patients with diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valve syndrome

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25571-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health [T35HL007649]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available