Desjardins, Valerie A.

Background— Bicuspid aortic valve is frequent and is reported to cause numerous complications, but the clinical outcome of patients diagnosed with normal or mildly dysfunctional valve is undefined. Methods and Results— In 212 asymptomatic community residents from Olmsted County, Minn (age, 32±20 years; 65% male), bicuspid aortic valve was diagnosed between 1980 and 1999 with ejection fraction ≥50% and aortic regurgitation or stenosis, absent or mild. Aortic valve degeneration at diagnosis was scored echocardiographically for calcification, thickening, and mobility reduction (0 to 3 each), with scores ranging from 0 to 9. At diagnosis, ejection fraction was 63±5% and left ventricular diameter was 48±9 mm. Survival 20 years after diagnosis was 90±3%, identical to the general population ( P =0.72). Twenty years after diagnosis, heart failure, new cardiac symptoms, and cardiovascular medical events occurred in 7±2%, 26±4%, and 33±5%, respectively. Twenty years after diagnosis, aortic valve surgery, ascending aortic surgery, or any cardiovascular surgery was required in 24±4%, 5±2%, and 27±4% at a younger age than the general population ( P <0.0001). No aortic dissection occurred. Thus, cardiovascular medical or surgical events occurred in 42±5% 20 years after diagnosis. Independent predictors of cardiovascular events were age ≥50 years (risk ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 5.7; P <0.01) and valve degeneration at diagnosis (risk ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 4.5; P =0.016; >70% events at 20 years). Baseline ascending aorta ≥40 mm independently predicted surgery for aorta dilatation (risk ratio, 10.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 77.3; P <0.01). Conclusions— In the community, asymptomatic patients with bicuspid aortic valve and no or minimal hemodynamic abnormality enjoy excellent long-term survival but incur frequent cardiovascular events, particularly with progressive valve dysfunction. Echocardiographic valve degeneration at diagnosis separates higher-risk patients who require regular assessment from lower-risk patients who require only episodic follow-up.

Objective— This study was undertaken to examine the association between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and aortic dilatation in the community. The association between BAV and aortic dilatation has been reported predominantly in retrospective studies in patients mostly with valvular dysfunction or selected surgical patients from tertiary referral centers. An independent association of BAV and aortic dilatation in a community-based study has not been demonstrated. Methods and Results— In a geographically defined population of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with BAV (n=44, age 35±13 years) without hemodynamically significant obstruction or regurgitation and matched controls with normal tricuspid aortic valves were identified by transthoracic echocardiography. The two groups were compared with respect to measurements of the aorta. The BAV and control groups differed with respect to size of the aortic anulus (23.2±2.4 versus 21.6±2.4 mm; P =0.002), aortic sinus (33.5±4.6 versus 30.3±4.1 mm; P =0.0001), and proximal ascending aorta (33.3±6.5 versus 27.9±3.6 mm; P =0.0001). There was no difference in the size of the aortic arch (24.2±3.6 versus 25.3±3.4 mm; P =0.16). These differences were maintained when the groups were stratified by sex and blood pressure. The relationship between bicuspid aortic valve and aortic dilatation was maintained when adjusting for factors related to fluid mechanics and hemodynamics such as systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection time, and peak aortic valve velocity. Conclusions— In a community-based study, BAV is associated with an alteration of aortic dimensions even in the absence of hemodynamically significant aortic valve stenosis or regurgitation.