biostudies-literatureUnknown12(7)Prinzing A<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 of thoracic disease3514-3523https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7399387biostudies-literatureComparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves.PMC7399387Prinzing ABoehm JLange RKrane MSideris KErlebach MfalseComparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves.<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.2020-01-01T00:00:00Z2020 Jul2025-04-25T17:40:47.259Z2025-04-06T05:52:19.065ZS-EPMC73993873280243010.21037/jtd-19-4193