Hope, Michael D.

Abstract This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.

Abstract This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes.

Objectives Several studies suggest the sensitivity of chest computed tomography (CT) is far greater than that of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in diagnosing COVID-19 patients, and therefore, CT should be included as a primary diagnostic tool. This systematic review aims to stratify studies as high or low risk of bias to determine the true sensitivity of CT for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection according to the unbiased (low risk) studies, a topic of particular importance given the insufficient quantity of RT-PCR kits in many countries. We focus on sensitivity as that is the chief advantage perceived of CT. Materials and Methods This systematic review involved searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for articles conducted and published between January 1 and April 15, 2020. The quality assessment tool QUADAS-2 was used to stratify studies according to their risk of bias, and exclusion criteria included not providing the information deemed relevant for such a stratification, such as not indicating if the patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, or identifying the source of the specimen for the reference standard, RT-PCR (eg, nasal, oropharyngeal, etc). Sensitivity values were then extracted, and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results Of 641 search results, 37 studies (n = 9610 patients) were included in the analysis. The mean sensitivity of RT-PCR for COVID-19 reported by the biased studies was 70% (n = 5409/7 studies; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43–97; I 2 = 99.1%), compared with 78% by unbiased studies (n = 534/4 studies; 95% CI, 69–87, I 2 = 89.9%). For chest CT, the mean sensitivity reported by biased studies was 94% (n = 3371 patients/24 studies; 95% CI, 92–96; I 2 = 93.1%), compared with 75% by unbiased studies (n = 957/10 studies; 95% CI, 67–83; I 2 = 89.5%). Conclusions The difference between the sensitivities of CT and RT-PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection is lower than previously thought, as after stratifying the studies, the true sensitivity for CT based on the unbiased studies is limited.