Aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease_1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Retrospective, observational study looking at outcomes after surgery for Bicuspid aortic valve disease - should root replacement be mandatory?
IRAS ID
182252
Contact name
Olaf Wendler
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 7 months, 1 days
Research summary
This study will look at the outcomes after surgery on bicuspid aortic valves with special regard to adverse aortic events, such as rupture or rapid growth.
Among the four heart valves, the aortic valve is a formed of three leaflets. A two-leaflet, Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), is the most common congenital deformation in the general population and associated with dilation of the proximate aorta (The part of the aorta, which is connected to the left chamber of the heart) causing severe complications such as rupture. When surgery on the BAV is required due to valve disease, guidelines state that replacement of the aortic root (the base of the aorta) should also be performed if dilation is >45mm, to prevent further complications.
However, patients requiring aortic root replacement are often NOT treated according to guidelines because of the feared increase in surgical risk due to a more extensive procedure. Additionally, risk of aortic complication in patients with dilation <45mm is not well described therefore threshold for surgery is constantly debated. We aim to assess the actual risk of surgery on BAV with or without root replacement and to evaluate the risk of aortic events in patients with mild to moderately dilated aortic roots.
We plan to perform a case-control study to investigate the operative outcomes of two historical cohorts with patients treated for BAV either via isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) or aortic root replacement (ARR).
Retrospective data from the patients routine ECHO will be collected and they will also be given a questionnaire to complete, which can be done over the phone or during their routine clinical visit. We will also ask the patient to consent if they would be happy for us to contact their GP/cardiologist to obtain information on previously done ECHOS.
REC name
East of England - Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/EE/0344
Date of REC Opinion
15 Sep 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion