ArticleOpen heart2021
Valve disease and aortopathy associations of bicuspid aortic valve phenotypes differ between men and women.
Article in Open heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aortopathy in Bicuspid Aortic Valve: Pathophysiology, Risk Stratification and Surgical Decision-Making-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Fracture properties of porcine versus human thoracic aortas from tricuspid/bicuspid aortic valve patients via symmetry-constraint Compact Tension testing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Aortic Stenosis: From the Pathophysiology to the Intervention, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical implications of the biomechanics of bicuspid aortic valve and bicuspid aortopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDetermine whether associations between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) phenotypes, valve disease and aortopathy differ between sexes.
methods1045 patients with BAV (76.0% men, n=794) from two surgical centres were included in this cross-sectional study. Valve phenotype was classified intraoperatively as right-left (RL), right-non-coronary (RN), left-non-coronary (LN) or 2-sinus BAV. Echocardiography was used to determine type and degree of valve disease, and aortic dimensions. Aortic dilatation was defined as diameter ≥4.5 cm.
resultsRL was the most common phenotype (73.6%), followed by RN (16.2%), 2-sinus BAV (9.2%) and LN (1.1%), with no difference in phenotype distribution between men and women (p=0.634). Aortic valve insufficiency (AI) prevalence differed significantly with valve phenotype in men (p=0.047), with RL and LN having the highest prevalence (34.1% and 44.0%, respectively). In women, RN had a higher proportion of AI than RL (21.3% vs 7.3%, p=0.017). Men with RL had larger root dimensions, in particular at the sinus (mean difference 0.24 cm compared with RN, p=0.002). Men with 2-sinus BAV had the highest prevalence of root phenotype dilatation (7.0%, other phenotypes ≤2.3%, p=0.031), whereas women with 2-sinus BAV did not have root dilatation and smaller sinus dimensions (mean difference: 0.35 cm compared with RL, p=0.021). Aortic root segments were larger in men with AI compared with aortic stenosis (sinus mean difference: 0.40 cm, p<0.001). The difference was even larger in women (mean difference: 0.78 cm, p<0.001), and women with AI also had larger tubular segments (mean difference: 0.61 cm, p=0.001).
conclusionsThere are significant sex differences in clinical associations of BAV phenotypes, which should be considered in further studies on the role of phenotypes in individualised patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.