ArticleOpen heart2025
Clinical course and outcomes of supravalvular aortic stenosis in adults.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Cholesterol Can Kill at 20: Recognizing and Managing Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Young.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Case Report: Dual molecular diagnosis in complex congenital heart disease in an Ecuadorian patient with supravalvar aortic stenosis and pulmonary valve stenosis carrying pathogenic variants inFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupravalvular aortic stenosis (SVAS) is a rare condition with limited data on patients beyond childhood. This study aims to investigate the clinical course and outcomes of SVAS in adults.
methodsAll adult (≥18 years) patients with SVAS, prospectively registered in the Dutch Congenital Cor Vitia database between 2001 and 2019, were included. Survival and event-free survival were assessed. Evolution of peak velocity was analysed using linear mixed models. Differences in previous operated state, sex and Williams-Beuren syndrome were explored.
results65 patients were included (age: 23 (IQR: 20, 31) years, 31% female, 46% previous SVAS correction, 47% Williams-Beuren syndrome). The peak velocity was 2.3±1.0 m/s at inclusion. Median follow-up time was 13 (IQR: 10, 17) years. Four patients died (one patient after cardiac surgery, two of non-cardiac causes and in one patient the cause of death was unknown) resulting in a 10-year survival of 95% (95% CI 90% to 100%) and event-free survival of 83% (95% CI 74% to 93%). There were no differences in event-free survival between previous operated state (p=0.2), sex (p=0.48) or Williams-Beuren syndrome (p=0.85). 31 cardiovascular events occurred in 15 patients, with the majority being arrhythmias. All SVAS-related interventions (three surgeries in two patients) occurred in unoperated patients (7 (95% CI 2 to 21)/1000 patient years). Although no patient showed fast progression (≥0.3 m/s/year), the peak velocity evolution over time increased faster in females compared with males (first time spline: 0.8 m/s, p=0.017).
conclusionIn adulthood, SVAS patients showed a stable clinical course without rapid progression. While cardiovascular events occurred in this young cohort, they were mostly obsereved in those with additional congenital heart defects, suggesting a more optimistic view for SVAS itself. No significant differences in outcomes were observed in patients with/without Williams-Beuren syndrome. Overall, SVAS tends to follow a more benign course in adulthood compared with childhood, potentially allowing for less intensive follow-up- though follow-up should still be individualised based on associated congenital heart defects and cardiovascular risks.
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.