Skip to main content
. 2019 May;8(3):302–312. doi: 10.21037/acs.2019.05.08

Table 2. Summary of major reports that present data on patients undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair.

Author, year, country Demographics Study design   Outcomes Results
Aicher et al. [2011], Germany (11) n=316, male 84.8%, age range 3–79 years, aortic dissection 8%, severe AI 72.8% Retrospective case series—Effect of valve configuration on outcomes of BAV repair   In-hospital mortality 0.63%
  10-year overall survival 92%
  10-year freedom from AI >2 81%
  10-year freedom from reoperation 81%
  10-year freedom from AVR 84%
Aicher et al. [2013], Germany (12) n=559, mean age 47.2±14.1 years, male 86.8% Retrospective cohort study—Isolated BAV repair vs. BAV repair with suture annuloplasty   In-hospital mortality 0.5%
  Reoperation for recurrent AI 9.7%
  Reoperation for aortic stenosis 0.4%
  10-year freedom from reoperation 82%
Alsoufi et al. [2005], Canada (4) n=71, male 87.3%, mean age 41.5±13.2 years Retrospective case series—Aortic valve repair for AI secondary to BAV inclusive of aortic remodeling and replacement   In-hospital mortality 0%
  Postoperative AI >2 0%
  8-year overall survival 96.7%
  Freedom from TE/hemorrhage 100%
  8-year freedom from reoperation 82.3%
  8-year freedom from endocarditis 90%
  8-year freedom from AI >2 44.2%
Ashikhmina et al. [2010], USA (13) n=108, male 91%, mean age 41 years Retrospective case series—BAV repair, excludes valve-sparing root replacements   In-hospital mortality 0%
  10-year overall survival 87%
  10-year freedom from reoperation 64%
  10-year freedom from AVR 49%
Badiu et al. [2010], Germany (14) n=11, male 100%, mean age 37±15.8 years, aortic dissection 0%, Marfan 0% Retrospective cohort study—Aortic valve repair for AI: BAV vs. TAV   Operative mortality 0%
  5-year overall survival 100%
  5-year freedom from reoperation 100%
  5-year freedom from AI 57.1%
  5-year freedom from TE events 95.9%
Bavaria et al. [2015], USA (15) n=129 Retrospective cohort study—Valve-sparing root reimplantation: BAV vs. TAV   Operative mortality 0%
  5-year overall survival 99%±1%
Boodhwani et al. [2010], Belgium (16) n=122, male 92%, mean age 44±11 years, AI >2 86.1% Retrospective case series—BAV repair with either AI or dilatation of proximal ascending aorta   In-hospital mortality 0%
  Discharge AI <2 93%
  8-year overall survival 97%±2%
  5-year freedom from AI >2 94%±3%
  8-year freedom from AV reoperation 83%±5%
  8-year freedom from AVR 90%±5%
  8-year freedom from TE and bleeding 96%±2%
Casselman et al. [1999], USA (17) n=94, male 93%, mean age 38±10 years Retrospective case series—Aortic valve repair for BAV with AI   Immediate reoperation 8.5%
  Immediate postoperative AI >2 2.1%
  7-year freedom from AV reoperation 84%
David et al. [2017], Canada (18) N=333, male 78%, mean age 46±5 years, BAV n=45 Prospective case series—Patients undergoing reimplantation for root aneurysm   20-year Freedom from reoperation 96.9%±1.3%
  20-year survival 72%±4%
  Thromboembolism free survival 92.5%±2.8%
de Kerchove et al. [2009], Belgium (19) n=54 Retrospective cohort study—Impact of preoperative AI on aortic valve-sparing surgery (limited BAV data)   5-year freedom from AI > 2 98%±2%
  8-year freedom from AV reoperation 91%±9%
de Kerchove et al. [2011], Belgium (20) n=161 Retrospective cohort study—BAV repair: subcommissural annuloplasty/no annuloplasty vs. reimplantation   In-hospital mortality 0%
  6-year overall survival 98%±3%
  6-year freedom from reoperation
    Subcommissural annuloplasty/no annuloplasty 90%±8%
    Reimplantation 100%
  6-year freedom from AI >2+
    Subcommissural annuloplasty/no annuloplasty 64%±15%
    Reimplantation 95%±5%
Doss et al. [2010], Germany (21) n=66: (I) n=49; (II) n=17. Mean age 41.2±12 years: (I) 58 years; (II) 39 years.
Male 78.8%: (I) 82.3%; (II) 77.6%. AI >2+ 95.4%: (I) 82.3%; (II) 100%
Retrospective cohort study—BAV and AI: (I) patch augmentation plus reduction aortoplasty vs. (II) modified David procedure   5-year mortality (I) 2.0%, (II) 0%
  5-year reoperation (I) 2.0%, (II) 0%
  5-year endocarditis (I) 2.0%, (II) 0%
  5-year conduction disturbance/thromboembolism/AI >1 (I) 0%, (II) 0%
Fattouch et al. [2017], Italy (22) n=152, mean age 55±7 years, male 72%, AI > 2+ 100% Retrospective case series—BAV with AI with or without concomitant root surgery   In-hospital death 1.3%
  5-year overall survival 88.6%±3.6%
  5-year freedom from recurrent AI >2 (requiring reoperation) 93%±3.1%
  5-year freedom from reintervention
    Aortic valve repair & reimplantation 98.4%±1.6%
    Aortic valve repair & subcommissural annuloplasty 93.3%±6.4%
    Aortic valve repair alone 82.6%±9.6%
Kin et al. [2003], Japan (23) n=19, male 98%, mean age 42±17 years Retrospective case series—Aortic valve repair for AI secondary to BAV   Hospital death 5.2%
  Early reoperation 5.2%
  Reoperation at follow-up 15.8%
  Late death 5.2%
  5-year overall survival 90%±7%
  5-year freedom from AV reoperation 76%±23%
Kari et al. [2016], Germany (24) N=1015, male 74%, mean age 53±16 years, BAV =163 (16%) Multicenter cohort VSRR   Early survival 98%
  8-year freedom from AVR 84%
  8-year survival 95%
Kari et al. [2013], USA (25) n=75, male 80%, mean age 45±10 years Retrospective case series—BAV for AI with or without cusp repair   Actuarial survival 99%±2%
  Freedom from reoperation 90%±5%
  Freedom from AR >2+ 100%
Karciaskas et al. [2019], UK (26) N=92, BAV =29 Retrospective case series   10-year freedom from AR >2+ 75%±8%
  10-year freedom from AV reoperation 83%±7%
  Overall survival 90%±4%
Kayatta et al. [2019] USA (27) N=60, male 80%, mean age 42±11 years Prospective case series—BAV with reimplantation   Freedom from 2+ AI 97%
  Freedom from AVR 96%
Lansac et al. [2017], France (28) Overall n=177, BAV =59 (33%) Prospective multicenter registry—Implementation of systematic height assessment in 2007   30-day mortality 2.9%
  7-year freedom from reoperation 99.5%
  Freedom from 3+ AI 100%
  Freedom from valve related events 96%
Magro et al. [2017], Portugal (29) n=42, mean age 50 years Retrospective case series—Valve-sparing root reimplantation for aortic annular ectasia (limited BAV data)   Long term survival Not reported
  Freedom from reintervention
Mangini et al. [2010], Italy (30) n=31, mean age 49.9 ±17.3 years, male 83.9%, AI >1 96.8% Prospective case series—BAV repair for AI   30-day operative mortality 3.2%
  Discharge AI >1 3.2%
  5-year freedom from reoperation 96.6%
Mastrobuoni et al. [2019], Belgium (31) N=440, BAV =177 (40.2%), mean age 49±15 years Observational cohort study of VSRR   In-hospital mortality 0.7%
  10-year survival 79%
  10-year freedom from reoperation 89%
Miller [2015], USA (32) n=331, Stanford modification 85.8%, Marfan 38.4%, Loeys Dietz 3.6% Retrospective case series—Stanford modification for valve-sparing root replacement: BAV vs. TAV   Operative mortality 0.6%
  10-year freedom from AV reoperation 92%±4%
  10-year freedom from structural valve deterioration 96%±2%
Schafers et al. [2010], Germany (33) n=153, mean age 51±12 years, male 86.9%, preoperative AI grade 2.6±0.8, aortic dissection 3.9% Retrospective case series—Valve-sparing root replacement for BAV and AI   In-hospital mortality 0.7%
  10-year overall survival 91%
  10-year freedom from AI >1 90%
  10-year freedom from reoperation 95%
  10-year freedom from AVR 97%
  TE events 2.6%
  Endocarditis 0%
  10-year freedom from AV complications 91%
Schneider et al. [2017], Germany (8) n=357, male 90.8%, AI ≥3+ 74.2% Retrospective case series—Combined BAV repair and root remodeling   In-hospital mortality 0.6%
  15-year overall survival 81%
  Reoperation for recurrent AI 6.7%
  Reoperation for aortic stenosis 1.7%
  15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation 21.7%
Svensson et al. [2014], USA (34) N=728, mean age 42±12 years Retrospective case series—Combined BAV repair techniques   10-year freedom from reoperation 78%
  10-year survival 94%

BAV, bicuspid aortic valve.