Variation in management of paediatric isolated bicuspid aortic valve: current practice survey

Background: Prior to the recent release of appropriate use criteria for imaging valvulopathies in children, follow-up of valvular lesions, including isolated bicuspid aortic valve, was not standardised. We describe current follow up, treatment, and intervention strategies for isolated bicuspid aortic valve with varying degrees of stenosis, regurgitation, and dilation in children up to 18 years old and compare them with newly released appropriate use criteria. Methods: Online survey was sent to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery and PediHeartNet. Results: Totally, 106 responses with interpretable data were received. For asymptomatic patients with isolated BAV without stenosis, regurgitation, or dilation follow-up-intervals increased from 7+/-4 months in the newborn period to 28 +/- 14 months at 18 years of age. Respondents recommended more frequent follow-up for younger patients and those with greater disease severity. More than 80% of respondents treat aortic regurgitation or aortic dilation in the setting of bicuspid aortic valve medically. In general, intervention was recommended once stenosis or regurgitation became severe (stenosis of >4 m/s; regurgitation with LV Z score 4) regardless of age, but was not routinely recommended for younger children (newborn - age 6 years) with severe dilation. Exercise was restricted at 38+/-11 mmHg echocardiographic mean gradient. Conclusions: Current follow-up, treatment, and intervention strategies for isolated bicuspid aortic valve deviate from appropriate use criteria. Differences between the two highlight the need to better delineate the disease course, clarify recommendations for care, and encourage wider adoption of guidelines.

Automated summary

This study describes the current follow-up, treatment, and intervention strategies for isolated bicuspid aortic valve in children with varying degrees of stenosis, regurgitation, and dilation, and compares them with the newly released appropriate use criteria. The results show deviations between current strategies and appropriate use criteria, highlighting the need for better delineation of the disease course, clarification of care recommendations, and wider adoption of guidelines.