loading page

Variability in surveillance practice for patients with diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valve syndrome
  • +5
  • Arianna Kahler-Quesada,
  • Ishani Vallabhajosyula,
  • Sameh Yousef,
  • Makoto Mori,
  • Roland Assi,
  • Rita Milewski,
  • Arnar Geirsson,
  • Prashanth Vallabhajosyula
Arianna Kahler-Quesada
Yale School of Medicine

Corresponding Author:arianna.kahler-quesada@yale.edu

Author Profile
Ishani Vallabhajosyula
Author Profile
Sameh Yousef
Yale School of Medicine
Author Profile
Makoto Mori
Yale University School of Medicine
Author Profile
Roland Assi
Yale University School of Medicine
Author Profile
Rita Milewski
Yale University School of Medicine
Author Profile
Arnar Geirsson
Yale University School of Medicine
Author Profile
Prashanth Vallabhajosyula
Yale School of Medicine
Author Profile

Abstract

Background/Aim: In patients with bicuspid aortic valves, guidelines call for regular follow-up to monitor disease progression and guide timely intervention. We aimed to evaluate how closely these recommendations are followed at a tertiary care center. Methods: This was retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center. Among 48,504 patients who received echocardiograms between 2013-2018, 245 patients were identified to have bicuspid aortic valve. Bivariate analyses compared patient and echocardiographic characteristics between patients who did and did not receive follow-up by a cardiovascular specialist. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 55.2  15.6 years and 30.2% were female. During a median follow-up of 3.5  2.2 years, 72.7% of patients had at least one visit with a cardiovascular specialist after diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valve by echocardiogram. Patients followed by specialists had a higher proportion of follow-up surveillance by echocardiogram (78.7% vs. 34.3%, p< .0001), or by CT or MRI (41.0% vs. 3.0%, p < .0001), and were more likely to undergo valve or aortic surgery compared with patients not followed by specialists. Patients with moderate to severe valvular or aortic pathology (aortic stenosis/regurgitation, dilated ascending aorta) were not more likely to be followed by a cardiovascular specialist or receive follow-up echocardiograms. Conclusions: Follow-up care for patients with bicuspid aortic valve was highly variable, and surveillance imaging was performed sparsely despite guidelines. There is an urgent need for surveillance and clinical follow-up mechanisms to monitor this patient population with increased risk of progressive valvulopathy and aortopathy.