{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["12(7)"],"submitter":["Prinzing A"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>Aortic valve repair (AV-repair) is an alternative treatment option for patients with aortic regurgitation (AR), but durability is still reason for concern, especially for bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We retrospectively evaluated mid-term results after AV-repair in patients with BAV or tricuspid aortic valves (TAV), including reoperation rates, recurrence of regurgitation, and survival.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients undergoing AV-repair between November 2004 and March 2016 without procedures involving the aortic root were included. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the operation and at follow-up. Repair techniques were recorded and evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>Of 150 patients, 89 (59.3%) had TAV and 61 (40.7%) BAV. AR ≥ moderate was found in 66 patients with TAV (74.2%) and 49 with BAV (80.3%). At discharge, 74 TAV-patients had ≤ mild AR (84.4%), 11 (12.4%) moderate. 57 patients (93.4%) with BAV had ≤ mild AR, 1 (1.6%) moderate and 2 (3.3%) severe. Mean follow-up was 4.4±2.7 years with ≤ mild AR in 56 TAV patients (73.7%) and moderate in 18 (20.2%). In patients with BAV, 43 (76.8%) had ≤ mild AR and 4 (6.6%) moderate. Survival in patients with TAV was significantly decreased compared to BAV (P=0.033), but reoperation-rates did not differ significantly (P=0.651).<h4>Conclusions</h4>AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV. The complexity of the repair technique predicts repair failure."],"journal":["Journal of thoracic disease"],"pagination":["3514-3523"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7399387"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves."],"pmcid":["PMC7399387"],"pubmed_authors":["Prinzing A","Boehm J","Lange R","Krane M","Sideris K","Erlebach M"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>Aortic valve repair (AV-repair) is an alternative treatment option for patients with aortic regurgitation (AR), but durability is still reason for concern, especially for bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We retrospectively evaluated mid-term results after AV-repair in patients with BAV or tricuspid aortic valves (TAV), including reoperation rates, recurrence of regurgitation, and survival.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients undergoing AV-repair between November 2004 and March 2016 without procedures involving the aortic root were included. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the operation and at follow-up. Repair techniques were recorded and evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>Of 150 patients, 89 (59.3%) had TAV and 61 (40.7%) BAV. AR ≥ moderate was found in 66 patients with TAV (74.2%) and 49 with BAV (80.3%). At discharge, 74 TAV-patients had ≤ mild AR (84.4%), 11 (12.4%) moderate. 57 patients (93.4%) with BAV had ≤ mild AR, 1 (1.6%) moderate and 2 (3.3%) severe. Mean follow-up was 4.4±2.7 years with ≤ mild AR in 56 TAV patients (73.7%) and moderate in 18 (20.2%). In patients with BAV, 43 (76.8%) had ≤ mild AR and 4 (6.6%) moderate. Survival in patients with TAV was significantly decreased compared to BAV (P=0.033), but reoperation-rates did not differ significantly (P=0.651).<h4>Conclusions</h4>AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV. The complexity of the repair technique predicts repair failure.","dates":{"release":"2020-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2020 Jul","modification":"2025-04-25T17:40:47.259Z","creation":"2025-04-06T05:52:19.065Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC7399387","cross_references":{"pubmed":["32802430"],"doi":["10.21037/jtd-19-4193"]}}