Valvular & structural heart disease
Differences in Severity and Prognosis Between Bicuspid and Tricuspid Severe Aortic Stenosis
Primary result · Five-year all-cause mortalityResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.46 95% CI 0.28–0.77Authors' conclusion
Patients with BAV have unique hemodynamic characteristics distinct from TAV.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry
- Participants
- 3,815 patients
- Comparison
- Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs tricuspid aortic valve (TAV)
- Primary endpoint
- All-cause mortality
- Follow-up
- 5 years; median 36.9 months (IQR: 18.2-51.8)
Methodological detailspropensity-score matched sensitivity analysis
- Propensity-score matched sensitivity analysis
Primary result
Five-year all-cause mortality · 5 years
Hazard ratio
0.46
95% CI 0.28–0.77
P = 0.003
By group
BAVvs TAV
HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.28–0.77); P = 0.003
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
Maximal aortic jet velocity
P < 0.001
Mean pressure gradient
P < 0.001
Aortic valve area
P = 0.288
Discordant severity grading
P < 0.001
Aortic valve area for equivalent jet velocity and mean gradient (linear regression)
- Larger aortic valve area in BAV for equivalent maximal aortic jet velocity and mean pressure gradient
Original publication
Differences in Severity and Prognosis Between Bicuspid and Tricuspid Severe Aortic Stenosis. JACC Adv. Published 31 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →