Contemporary differences between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in chronic aortic regurgitation.

Objective To comprehensively explore contemporary differences between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients with chronic haemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation (AR). Methods Consecutive patients with chronic ≥moderate-severe AR from a tertiary referral centre (2006-2017) were included. All-cause mortality, surgical indications and aortic valve surgery (AVS) were analysed. Results Of 798 patients (296 BAV-AR, age 46±14 years; 502 TAV-AR, age 67±14 years, p 20 mm/m2; similar thresholds were observed for BAV-AR patients. Conclusion BAV-AR patients were two decades younger than TAV-AR and underwent AVS more frequently, resulting in a considerable real-life survival advantage for BAV-AR that was determined primarily by age and not valve anatomy. Pragmatically, regardless of valve anatomy, patients with haemodynamically significant AR and age >50-55 years require a low-threshold for surgical referral to prevent symptom development where LVEF 20 mm/m2 seem appropriate referral thresholds.