Skip to main content
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2021 Nov 3;44(12):1683–1691. doi: 10.1002/clc.23736

Association between bicuspid aortic valve phenotype and patterns of valvular dysfunction: A meta‐analysis

Zhenzhen Mai 1, Lina Guan 1, Yuming Mu 1,
PMCID: PMC8715397  PMID: 34734421

Abstract

Background

Valvular dysfunction is a common complication in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between BAV morphology patterns and valve dysfunction.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI until May 31, 2020, to identify all studies investigating the morphology of BAV and valvular dysfunction, and data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Data were analyzed using Stata 15.1 software. The additional characteristics (gender, mean age) were collected to perform a meta‐regression analysis.

Results

Thirteen studies on BAV‐RL (n = 2002) versus BAV‐RN (n = 1254) and raphe (n = 4001) versus without raphe (n = 673) were included. The BAV‐RL patients showed a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation than BAV‐RN patients (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.90, p = .005), while the BAV‐RL patients showed a lower incidence of aortic stenosis than BAV‐RN patients (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.76, p = .000); BAV patients with raphe presents a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation than those without raphe (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.12–3.39, p = .017). No differences were found between raphe and without raphe group in the incidence of aortic stenosis (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.76, p = .907). Mean age and gender had no influence on observed differences.

Conclusions

Our results confirmed a relationship between different BAV phenotypes and aortic valve dysfunction. BAV‐RL and BAV with raphe are more likely to develop aortic regurgitation, while patients with BAV‐RN present a higher possibility to develop aortic stenosis.

Keywords: aortic regurgitation, aortic stenosis, bicuspid aortic valve, meta‐analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital cardiac defect that observed in 1%–2% of general population, 1 with a male to female ratio of about 3:1. Patients with BAV are at a high risk of developing aortic valve dysfunction, either stenosis or regurgitation, or both. Studies have suggested that 33% of patients with BAV will suffer serious and life‐threatening complications in their lifetime. Therefore, early detection and prevention of the complications caused by BAV are of paramount importance. 2 BAV appears to be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion with incomplete penetrance. It has been postulated that the defective genes encoding the protein matrix structure could be responsible for developmental impairment of heart, and leading to valvular abnormalities. 3 , 4 , 5 BAV presents several phenotypes, and an animal experiment demonstrated that different BAV phenotypes are caused by different developmental processes, suggesting that different BAV phenotypes should be considered as different etiological entities with different valvular lesions, aortic size, and elasticity. 6 Thus, more credit should be given to the association between BAV phenotypes with valvular dysfunction. 7

The most common BAV pattern is fusion of the right and left coronary cusps, and fusion of the right and noncoronary cusps. 8 , 9 Previous evidence suggests that various BAV types, distinguished by the morphology of the valve cusp fusion, may carry different relationships with valvular dysfunction; however, the published literature is incoherent in this regard. Several studies have reported an increased frequency of significant valvulopathy in pediatric patients with right and left coronary cusps fusion, 10 while another longitudinal follow‐up study claimed that BAV phenotype failed to demonstrate a prognostic implication. 11

2. AIM OF THE STUDY

Therefore, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the impact of different BAV cusp fusion morphology on the incidence of valvular dysfunction, and provide clues and evidence for early clinical diagnosis and prevention of complications.

3. METHODS

3.1. Search strategy

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: bicuspid aortic valve, aortic regurgitation, aortic stenosis, valve dysfunction. Articles were rejected on initial screening if from the title or the abstract it was judged that the article does not report aortic valve dysfunction and BAV morphology. Subsequently, the full text of the remaining articles was retrieved. All the references were also scanned. The particular studies were examined to exclude duplicated and overlapped data. Finally, only studies evaluating aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation were included. In case of missing data, the authors were contacted by e‐mail to try to retrieve the original data. Each article was analyzed by two independent individuals and data extraction was done independently. In case of disagreement, a third investigator was consulted. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) (Figure 1). 12

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Flow diagram for study selection. This flow chart shows the initial search results and final review of 11studies after consideration of exclusions

3.2. Study selection and data extraction

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the domestic and foreign published literature, all studies that participants were diagnosed as BAV by TTE or TEE or CT; (2) An information about the morphology of BAV (RL morphology and RN morphology) according to previously mentioned definition and information related to valve dysfunction. (3) More complete raw data is available in the literature for calculation of odds ratio (OR).

Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) No data on the BAV morphology and valve dysfunction, or there is not enough data available for odds ratio (OR) calculations; (2) Review article, case studies, animal experiments, and conference abstracts. (3) Research that not able to access the full text through various channels is only an abstract.

The following data were also extracted from each study: first author, year of publication, used imaging modality, study population characteristics including mean age, male gender percentage, sample size (number of subjects in particular BAV subtypes), number of patients with AS, and number of patients with AR.

3.3. Statistical analyses and risk of bias assessment

The presented meta‐analysis was performed using Statistica 15.1. The frequency variable is expressed as n (%). Differences among AS and AR between the two types of BAV patients were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with pertinent 95% CI for dichotomous variables. Overall effect was tested using Z scores, and significance was set at p < .05. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed with the chi‐square Cochran's Q test and with the I2 statistic, which measures the inconsistency across study results and describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates. To evaluate the individual impact of each study on the overall effect size, sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave‐one‐out approach, by estimating the weighted mean difference in the absence of each single study.

The presence of publication bias was evaluated using Egger's weighted regression tests and Begg's rang correlation. Publication bias was evaluated visually by inspection of funnel plots of SE and mean difference asymmetry. Visual inspection of funnel plot asymmetry was performed to address for possible small‐study effect, as well as the Egger test to address publication bias, over and above any subjective evaluation. p < .05 was considered statistically significant. 13

4. RESULTS

4.1. Search results and study characteristics

The total of 2376 articles were searched from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI. Articles that abstracts and titles were irrelevant to our objection were excluded during the initial screening. Then, full texts of 23 articles were analyzed. At last, 13 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 articles meet the inclusion criteria. The number of patients varied from 67 to 785, mean age ranged from 17.2 to 59 years, and the prevalence of male sex is from 60% to 78%. The following imaging modalities were used in analyzed studies: transthoracic echocardiography (TEE), transesophageal echocardiography (TTE), computed tomography (CT), and complex MDCT/TEE imaging. The baseline characteristics of the all included studies are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1.

Description of the studies included into the analysis of AS associated with BAV morphology

Reference Time Imaging Country RL RN Mean age (y) Man (%)
AS N AS N
Sun 21 2017 TTE/TEE Korea 269 361 292 320 59 ± 12 62.0
Ruzmetov 17 2015 TTE US 27 96 56 114 17.2 ± 9.9 60.0
Ren XS 24 2017 TTE China 37 125 49 74 50.3 ± 3.8 65.5
Miśkowiec 15 2016 TTE/TEE Poland 26 46 15 21 55.3 ± 6.7 78.0
Tabriziet 19 2018 TTE/TEE Iran 51 188 63 112 40 ± 16 72.0
Kang 14 2013 TTE/CT Korea 43 93 49 74 54.6 ± 4.4 68.9
Hong 22 2014 TTE/CT Korea 33 192 37 80 51.7 ± 4.4 72.7
Huang 16 2013 TTE Singapore 27 117 25 74 48.4 ± 5.8 67.0
Tuluce 20 2017 TTE/TEE Turkey 42 105 33 49 37 (17–70) 71.4
Wei Liqun 23 2018 TTE China 55 89 103 141 52.6 ± 5.0 51.6
Evangelist 18 2017 TTE Spain 146 590 58 195 47.4 ± 6.8 70.2
AR N AR N
Sun 21 2017 TTE/TEE Korea 144 361 71 320 59 ± 12 62.0
Ruzmetov 17 2015 TTE US 40 96 60 114 17.2 ± 9.9 60.0
Ren XS 24 2017 TTE China 74 125 13 74 50.3 ± 3.8 65.5
Miśkowiec 15 2016 TTE/TEE Poland 42 46 18 21 55.3 ± 6.7 78.0
Tabriziet 19 2018 TTE/TEE Iran 150 188 77 112 40 ± 16 72.0
Kang 14 2013 TTE/CT Korea 31 93 5 74 54.6 ± 4.4 68.9
Hong 22 2014 TTE/CT Korea 58 192 11 80 51.7 ± 4.4 72.7
Huang 16 2013 TTE Singapore 49 117 26 74 48.4 ± 5.8 67.0
Tuluce 20 2017 TTE/TEE Turkey 75 105 36 49 37 (17–70) 71.4
Wei Liqun 23 2018 TTE China 44 89 39 141 52.6 ± 5.0 51.6
Evangelist 18 2017 TTE Spain 146 590 44 195 47.4 ± 6.8 70.2

TABLE 2.

Description of the studies included into the analysis of valvular dysfunction associated with BAV morphology (Raphe+ vs. Raphe−)

Reference Time Imaging Country Raphe+ Raphe− Mean age (y) Man (%)
AS N AS N
Kong 25 2017 TTE Netherlands 721 1881 51 237 47.0 ± 8.0 72.0
Sievers 26 2014 NA Germany 550 1247 64 115 54.2 ± 3.4 76.7
Ren XS 24 2017 TTE China 25 109 61 88 50.3 ± 3.8 65.5
Hong 22 2014 TTE/CT Korea 50 120 50 89 51.7 ± 4.4 72.7
Evangelist 18 2017 TTE Spain 166 644 16 144 47.4 ± 6.8 72.0
AR N AR N
Kong 25 2017 TTE Netherlands 144 361 71 320 47.0 ± 8.0 72.0
Sievers 26 2014 NA Germany 40 96 60 114 54.2 ± 3.4 76.7
Ren XS 24 2017 TTE China 74 125 13 74 50.3 ± 3.8 65.5
Hong 22 2014 TTE/CT Korea 42 46 18 21 51.7 ± 4.4 72.7
Evangelist 18 2017 TTE Spain 150 188 77 112 47.4 ± 6.8 72.0

Abbreviations: AR, aortic regurgitation (at least moderate); AS, aortic stenosis (at least moderate); CT, computed tomography; NA, data not available; RL, right and left cusp fusion bicuspid aortic valve morphology; RN, right and noncoronary cusp fusion bicuspid aortic valve morphology; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography.

4.2. Correlation between BAV morphology(RL and RN)and aortic stenosis

Eleven studies, 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 including 2002 BAV‐RL and 1254 BAV‐RN patients, showed that AS was reported in 37.8% BAV‐RL subjects and in 62.1% BAV‐RN patients (OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.76; p = .000), the difference was statistically significant. Heterogeneity among studies was not significant (I2 = 28.4%; p = .124). The combined effect quantity OR was determined using a fixed effect model. Fixed effects meta‐regression suggests that age (slope: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.01–0.03; Z = −0.59; p = .396), male gender (slope: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.04–0.01; Z = 0.46; p = .122) does not associated with the incidence of aortic regurgitation. Forest plot summarizing the meta‐analysis of studies comparing aortic stenosis between RL and RN BAV groups is shown in Figure 2A.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Forest plots. (A) Incidence of Aortic stenosis in patients with RL BAV and RN BAV; (B) Incidence of aortic regurgitation in patients with RL BAV and RN BAV. RL = right and left cusp fusion of bicuspid aortic valve; RL = right or left and noncoronary cusp fusion of bicuspid aortic valve; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval

4.3. Correlation between BAV morphology (RL and RN) and aortic regurgitation

In 11 studies, 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 including 2002 BAV‐RL and 1254 BAV‐RN patients, AR was reported in 42.6% of BAV‐RL subjects and 31.9% BAV‐RN patients (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.90; p = .005), the difference was statistically significant. Heterogeneity among studies was significant (I2 = 65.0%; p = 0.001). Random‐effects meta‐regression suggests that age (slope: 0.02; 95% CI:−0.01–0.05; Z = −0.59; p = .215), male gender (slope: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.05–0.06; Z = −0.59; p = .767) does not associated with the incidence of aortic regurgitation. Forest plot summarizing the meta‐analysis of studies comparing aortic regurgitation between RL and RN BAV groups is shown in Figure 2B.

4.4. Correlation between BAV morphology (raphe vs. without raphe) with aortic regurgitation

Five studies, 18 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 including 4674 patients, exhibit 4001 (85.6%) BAV patients has raphe, and 673 (14.4%) BAV patients are without raphe. Bicuspid aortic valves with raphe had a higher frequency to develop aortic regurgitation (28.9% vs. 21.4%; OR = 1.67; 95% CI: 1.04–2.67, p = .032). Heterogeneity among studies was significant (I2 = 80.3%, p = .001), the combined effect quantity OR was determined using Random effect model. Forest plot summarizing the meta‐analysis of studies comparing aortic regurgitation between raphe and without raphe BAV groups is shown in Figure 3A.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Forest plots. (A) Forest plot diagram of correlation between bicuspid aortic valve classification (Raphe vs. Nonraphe) and aortic regurgitation (AR); (B). Forest plot diagram of correlation between bicuspid aortic valve classification (Raphe vs. Nonraphe) and aortic stenosis (AS)

4.5. Correlation between BAV morphology (raphe vs. without raphe) with aortic stenosis

Five studies 18 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 demonstrated that bicuspid aortic valves with or without raphe do not affect the incidence of developing aortic stenosis (37.8% vs. 36.0%, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.53–1.76, p = .907). Heterogeneity among studies was significant (I2 = 90.3%; p = 0.000), the combined effect quantity OR was determined using Random effect model. Forest plot summarizing the meta‐analysis of studies comparing aortic stenosis between raphe and without raphe BAV groups is shown in Figure 3B.

4.6. Sensitivity analysis

Presented pooled results were found to be robust in the performed leave‐one‐out sensitivity analysis, removing 1 study at a time. Obtained stability of the presented results confirms a significant difference in the frequency of aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation between the BAV‐RL and BAV‐RN groups. For the analysis of the association between BAV phenotype and aortic stenosis, I2 ranged from 8.5% to 42.7%, showing increased heterogeneity (Table S1). For the analysis of the association between BAV phenotype and aortic regurgitation, I2 ranged from 60.0% to 69.5%, the results did not differ from the previous ones. (Table S2).

4.7. Publication bias analysis

Because it is recognized that publication bias can affect results of meta‐analyses, we attempted to assess this potential bias using funnel plot visual analysis. Our results suggest that there is no potential bias for the comparison of BAV‐RL and BAV‐RN in aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation. The Begg rank correlation test (Kendall tau with continuity correction: Pr > |z| = 0.53, Z = 0.62) and the Egger linear regression test (intercept: −1.71, 95% CI: −3.7 to 0.35; t = −1.88, p > |t| = .093) exhibit no evidence of publications bias when comparing the incidence of aortic stenosis between BAV‐RL and BAV‐RN patients. Moreover, the Begg rank correlation analysis (Kendall tau with continuity correction: Pr > |z| = 0.35, Z = 0.93), and the Egger linear regression test (intercept: 1.8, 95% CI: −1.87 to 5.62; t = 1.13, p > |t| = 0.287) suggested also no evidence of publications bias when comparing the incidence of aortic stenosis between BAV‐RL and BAV‐RN patients.

5. DISCUSSION

Our meta‐analysis shows that BAV patients with right and left cusp fusion are incline to develop aortic regurgitation, while patients with right and noncoronary cusp fusion are more likely to develop aortic stenosis. Moreover, bicuspid aortic valves with raphe showed a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation. However, with or without raphe does not affect the incidence of aortic stenosis. This meta‐analysis is the first to assess the effect of BAV phenotype on valvular dysfunction differences.

BAV has diverse morphologic variants, and might result in different pathogenesis and clinical manifestations, the BAV phenotype has been an interesting topic for many investigators. There are multiple classifications of the pathological types of bicuspid aortic valve malformations, and the most common classification is based on the presence or absence of fused spine formation, leaflet fusion type, and leaflet spatial location. This study classifies the presence or absence of fused spine formation and type of leaflet fusion.

The most common complication of the BAV in adults is AV dysfunction necessitating surgical aortic repair or AV replacement (AVR) (population‐based 25‐year risk of AVR is up to 53%), 27 and is most commonly driven by presence of severe AS followed by severe aortic regurgitation (AR) and mixed AV disease. As a cause of AVR, AS has been reported between 61% and 88% in population‐based studies and studies from tertiary‐referral centers, conversely, AR is only responsible for 15 and 29% AV surgery. 28 Some studies have suggested a BAV phenotype role in the rapid progression of valvular dysfunction. 10 Because of the early and rapid progression of valvular lesions in patients with BAV malformation, the age of the patients undergoing surgery is about 10 years younger than the normal population. In addition, analysis of BAV morphology is of prognostic relevance, Fernandes et al. 10 demonstrated a 64% free from intervention in patients with fusion of the R‐N. However, in patients with fusion of the R‐L, 91% free from intervention was noted. Therefore, the purpose of our meta‐analysis was to evaluate the impact of BAV morphology on valve dysfunction, use morphological differences to predict the trend of complications.

Because a raphe is commonly seen in patients with BAV, the clinical significance of raphe is of interest. A global registry showed that the presence of a visible raphe is associated with significant (moderate or greater) AS and AR and higher future incidence of AVR. 25 Furthermore, BAV patients with raphe had higher rates of AVR compared with patients without raphe. 25 It is reported that the raphe of a BAV and a higher tendency for calcium deposition are important causes of significant valve dysfunction. 29 Therefore, patients with BAV with raphe tend to develop significant valvular dysfunction at a younger age. Our meta‐analysis found that aortic regurgitation was more frequently observed among patients with raphe.

In addition, evaluation of inter‐ethnic differences in valve morphology and function in patients with BAV is important for the worldwide spread of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Kong et al. 30 reported that there is significant heterogeneity in BAV across European and Asian population, type 0 (without raphe) is more frequently observed in Europeans and fusion raphe between the right and the noncoronary cusps is more frequently observed in Asians. The European group had higher incidence of significant aortic regurgitation than the Asian group (44.2% vs. 26.8%, respectively; p < .001). There was no difference in the grades of aortic stenosis between these two populations.

BAV patients show obvious heterogeneity in many different clinical aspects, including the BAV phenotype and the severity of valve dysfunction. From a clinical point of view, our study confirms some practical implications. When studying BAV patients, the imaging should be not only focused on the type of valvular dysfunction, but should be also performed a very careful scrutiny of the BAV phenotype, seeking all the spectrum of aortic valve malformations, having in mind that BAV phenotype can directly affect the type of valvular dysfunction. Information about BAV morphology may help to facilitate more individualized patient management and risk stratification. Further study is necessary to determine why the distribution of valvular dysfunction differed according to BAV morphology.

The present meta‐analysis has some limitations. First, due to the limited number of studies included, the heterogeneity of the studies about the relationship between the BAV and aortic regurgitation is greater, and the source of heterogeneity is not further analyzed. However, we have at least partially reduced the effect of observed heterogeneity on the overall effect size by selecting a random effects model analysis. Second, there is inevitably a risk shift in the study of any population, especially the confounder in retrospective studies. These differences may be responsible for the heterogeneity between studies. Third, a systematic approach to the detailed classification of BAV should be routinely applied in clinical practice to provide new insights into this common disease entity in the future.

Our results confirmed a relationship between different BAV phenotypes and aortic valve dysfunction. BAV‐RL and BAV with raphe are more likely to develop aortic regurgitation, while patients with BAV‐RN present a higher possibility to develop aortic stenosis.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

Supporting information

Appendix S1: Supporting Information

Mai Z, Guan L, Mu Y. Association between bicuspid aortic valve phenotype and patterns of valvular dysfunction: A meta‐analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2021;44:1683-1691. doi: 10.1002/clc.23736

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Siu SC, Silversides CK. Bicuspid aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2789‐2800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Michelena HI, Khanna AD, Mahoney D, et al. Incidence of aortic complications in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. JAMA. 2011;306:1104‐1112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Abdulkareem N, Smelt J, Jahangiri M. Bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy: genetics, pathophysiology and medical therapy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:554‐559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Kent KC, Crenshaw ML, Goh DL, Dietz HC. Genotypephenotype correlation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and aneurysm. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146:15865 e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Prakash SK, Bosse Y, Muehlschlegel JD, et al. A roadmap to investigate the genetic basis of bicuspid aortic valve and its complications: insights from the international BAVCon (bicuspid aortic valve consortium). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:832‐839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Fernández B, Durán AC, Fernández‐Gallego T, et al. Bicuspid aortic valves with different spatial orientations of the leaflets are distinct etiological entities. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2312‐2318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ferencik M, Pape LA. Changes in size of ascending aorta and aortic valve function with time in patients with congenitally bicuspid aortic valves. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:43‐46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Verma S, Siu SC. Aortic dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1920‐1929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Khoo C, Cheung C, Jue J. Patterns of aortic dilatation in bicuspid aortic valve‐associated aortopathy. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:600‐605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Fernandes SM, Khairy P, Sanders SP, Colan SD. Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and interventions in the young. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2211‐2214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Tzemos N, Therrien J, Yip J, et al. Outcomes in adults with bicuspid aortic valves. JAMA. 2008;300:1317‐1325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123‐e130. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2001;323:101‐105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Kang J‐W, Song HG, Yang DH, et al. Association between bicuspid aortic valve phenotype and patterns of valvular dysfunction and bicuspid aortopathy: comprehensive evaluation using MDCT and echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:150‐161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Miśkowiec DŁ, Lipiec P, Kasprzak JD. Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and its association with aortic diameter – an echocardiographic study. Kardiol Pol. 2016;74:151‐158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Huang FQ, Le Tan J. Pattern of aortic dilatation in different bicuspid aortic valve phenotypes and its association with aortic valvular dysfunction and elasticity. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:32‐38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Ruzmetov M, Shah JJ, Fortuna RS, Welke KF. The association between aortic valve leaflet morphology and patterns of aortic dilation in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:2101‐2107. discussion 2107–2108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Evangelista A, Gallego P, Calvo Iglesias F, et al. Heart anatomical and clinical predictors of valve dysfunction and aortic dilation in bicuspid aortic valve disease 2018; 104: 566–573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Tabrizi MT, Asl RR. Evaluation of relationship between bicuspid aortic valve phenotype with valve dysfunction and associated aortopathy. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2018;10(4):236‐242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Tuluce SY, Tülüce K. Assessment of bicuspid aortic valve phenotypes and associated pathologies: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2017;45(8):690‐701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Sun BJ, Lee S, Jang JY, et al. Performance of a simplified dichotomous phenotypic classification of bicuspid aortic valve to predict type of valvulopathy and combined aortopathy. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30:1152‐1161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Shin HJ, Shin JK. Characteristics of aortic valve dysfunction and ascending aorta dimensions according to bicuspid aortic valve morphology. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2103‐2114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Liqun W, Yidan L, Kong L, et al. Comparison of echocardiography and clinical features in different bicuspid aortic valve morphologies. Chin J Evidence‐Based Cardiovasc Med. 2018;1674:4055. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Xinshuang R, Yitong Y, Liu K, et al. Comparison of valvular dysfunction and ascending aortic dilation in patients with different pathological types of bilobal aortic valve malformation. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2014;45:491‐495. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Kong WKF, Delgado V, Keong K, et al. Prognostic implications of raphe in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(3):285‐292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Sievers HH, Stierle U, Mohamed SA, et al. Toward individualized management of the ascending aorta in bicuspid aortic valve surgery: the role of valve phenotype in 1362 patients. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2072‐2080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Michelena HI, Prakash SK, Della Corte A, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve: identifying knowledge gaps and rising to the challenge from the international bicuspid AorticValve consortium (BAVCon). Circulation. 2014;129:2691‐2704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Yang LT, Tribouilloy C, Masri A, et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of adults with bicuspid aortic valves: 2020 update. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63:434‐441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Togashi M, Tamura K, Masuda Y, Fukuda Y. Comparative study of calcified changes in aortic valvular diseases. J Nippon Med Sch. 2008;75(3):138‐145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kong WKF, Regeer MV, Poh KK, et al. Inter‐ethnic differences in valve morphology, valvular dysfunction, and aortopathy between Asian and European patients with bicuspid aortic valve. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1308‐1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix S1: Supporting Information

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.


Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES