• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

四叶式与二叶式主动脉瓣患者的临床结局

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Quadricuspid vs Bicuspid Aortic Valve.

作者信息

Zhang Jingnan, Fang Fang, Xia Zhiyuan, Zhu Wenhao, Tsang Christopher Tze-Wei, Ren Qingwen, Huang Jiayi, Guo Ran, Gu Wenli, Xuan Haochen, Chan Yap-Hang, Chan Tai-Leung, Yeung Alan C, Delgado Victoria, Pan Xiangbin, Zhang Gejun, Yiu Kai-Hang

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Aug 1;8(8):e2524915. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.24915.

DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.24915
PMID:40758353
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12322796/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Congenital aortic valve disease predominantly manifests as bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), while quadricuspid aortic valve (QAV) is considerably rarer. Whether outcomes vary between these 2 types of congenital aortic valve disease remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between patients with QAV and patients with BAV.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, patients diagnosed with QAV or BAV were retrospectively identified from echocardiographic examinations performed from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2023, at 2 tertiary hospitals in China. Patients with QAV were propensity score matched 1:5 by age and sex with patients with BAV.

EXPOSURE

Presence of QAV or BAV.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included aortic valve intervention (surgical or transcatheter), aortic surgery, aortic dissection, infective endocarditis (IE), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause death. Morbidity rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence function to account for competing risk of death. Relative survival was calculated as the ratio of observed survival to the expected survival in the general population.

RESULTS

From 2 945 132 echocardiographic examinations, 139 patients with QAV (median age, 54.8 [IQR, 46.2-63.9] years; 85 [61.2%] male) and 695 with BAV (median age, 55.4 [IQR, 45.5-64.2] years; 425 [61.2%] male) were included. Over a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR, 2.4-8.0 years), patients with QAV had a similar incidence of aortic valve intervention (77.4% [95% CI, 64.5%-86.1%] vs 75.7% [95% CI, 71.1%-79.8%]; P = .26) but lower incidence of aortic surgery (5.1% [95% CI, 0.9%-15.0%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 28.4%-39.2%]; P < .001) and IE (not observed vs 9.6% [95% CI, 6.4%-13.5%]; P = .01) compared with patients with BAV. Aortic dissection was rare in both groups (QAV, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.1%-4.1%]; BAV, 3.6% [95% CI, 1.8%-6.4%]; P = .57). Compared with BAV, QAV morphology was associated with an increased risk of HFH after multivariable adjustments (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.52; 95% CI, 1.51-4.20; P < .001). Presence of cardiomyopathies was an independent factor associated with HFH in patients with QAV (AHR, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.26-8.07; P < .001). The 5-year relative survival rate compared with the age- and sex-matched general population was 102.9% (95% CI, 97.9%-107.2%) for patients with QAV and 102.4% (95% CI, 99.3%-104.8%) for those with BAV.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large, retrospective cohort study, both QAV and BAV were associated with a high risk of aortic valve intervention. Individuals with QAV had a greater risk of HFH, while those with BAV had higher incidence of IE and aortic surgery. Despite the substantial morbidity burden, survival in both groups was similar to that in the general population.

摘要

重要性

先天性主动脉瓣疾病主要表现为二叶式主动脉瓣(BAV),而四叶式主动脉瓣(QAV)则极为罕见。这两种类型的先天性主动脉瓣疾病的预后是否存在差异仍不明确。

目的

比较QAV患者和BAV患者的预后。

设计、背景和参与者:在这项队列研究中,从2011年1月1日至2023年12月31日在中国两家三级医院进行的超声心动图检查中,回顾性识别出诊断为QAV或BAV的患者。QAV患者按年龄和性别与BAV患者进行1:5倾向评分匹配。

暴露因素

存在QAV或BAV。

主要结局和测量指标

感兴趣的结局包括主动脉瓣干预(手术或经导管)、主动脉手术、主动脉夹层、感染性心内膜炎(IE)、心力衰竭住院(HFH)和全因死亡。发病率采用累积发病率函数进行估计,以考虑死亡的竞争风险。相对生存率计算为观察到的生存率与一般人群预期生存率的比值。

结果

在2945132次超声心动图检查中,纳入了139例QAV患者(中位年龄54.8岁[四分位间距,46.2 - 63.9岁];85例[61.2%]为男性)和695例BAV患者(中位年龄55.4岁[四分位间距,45.5 - 64.2岁];425例[61.2%]为男性)。在中位随访4.8年(四分位间距,2.4 - 8.0年)期间,QAV患者的主动脉瓣干预发生率相似(77.4%[95%置信区间,64.5% - 86.1%]对75.7%[95%置信区间,71.1% - 79.8%];P = 0.26),但主动脉手术(5.1%[95%置信区间,0.9% - 15.0%]对33.8%[95%置信区间,28.4% - 39.2%];P < 0.001)和IE(未观察到对9.6%[95%置信区间,6.4% - 13.5%];P = 0.01)的发生率低于BAV患者。两组主动脉夹层均罕见(QAV,0.9%[95%置信区间,0.1% - 4.1%];BAV,3.6%[95%置信区间,1.8% - 6.4%];P = 0.57)。多变量调整后,与BAV相比,QAV形态与HFH风险增加相关(调整后风险比[AHR],2.52;95%置信区间,1.51 - 4.20;P < 0.001)。心肌病的存在是QAV患者HFH的独立相关因素(AHR,4.27;95%置信区间,2.26 - 8.07;P < 0.001)。与年龄和性别匹配的一般人群相比,QAV患者的5年相对生存率为102.9%(95%置信区间,97.9% - 107.2%),BAV患者为102.4%(95%置信区间,99.3% - 104.8%)。

结论和相关性

在这项大型回顾性队列研究中,QAV和BAV均与主动脉瓣干预的高风险相关。QAV个体发生HFH的风险更高,而BAV个体发生IE和主动脉手术的发生率更高。尽管存在严重的发病负担,但两组的生存率与一般人群相似。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bf4/12322796/2087df64d1a6/jamanetwopen-e2524915-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bf4/12322796/f138b787564a/jamanetwopen-e2524915-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bf4/12322796/2087df64d1a6/jamanetwopen-e2524915-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bf4/12322796/f138b787564a/jamanetwopen-e2524915-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bf4/12322796/2087df64d1a6/jamanetwopen-e2524915-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Quadricuspid vs Bicuspid Aortic Valve.四叶式与二叶式主动脉瓣患者的临床结局
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Aug 1;8(8):e2524915. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.24915.
2
Surgical thresholds for bicuspid aortic valve associated aortopathy.二叶式主动脉瓣相关主动脉病变的手术阈值。
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Dec;6(12):1311-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.10.005.
3
Transcatheter bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus: an observational study.小主动脉瓣环患者经导管二尖瓣与三尖瓣主动脉瓣置换术的观察性研究
Open Heart. 2025 Jun 13;12(1):e003357. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2025-003357.
4
Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.两种现代生存预测工具 SORG-MLA 和 METSSS 在接受手术联合放疗和单纯放疗治疗有症状长骨转移患者中的比较。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Dec 1;482(12):2193-2208. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003185. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
5
Outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.二叶式主动脉瓣和三叶式主动脉瓣患者行保留瓣膜主动脉根部替换术的结局:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2023 Jul 3;18(1):206. doi: 10.1186/s13019-023-02329-8.
6
Does Augmenting Irradiated Autografts With Free Vascularized Fibula Graft in Patients With Bone Loss From a Malignant Tumor Achieve Union, Function, and Complication Rate Comparably to Patients Without Bone Loss and Augmentation When Reconstructing Intercalary Resections in the Lower Extremity?对于因恶性肿瘤导致骨缺损的患者,在重建下肢节段性切除时,采用带血管游离腓骨移植来增强照射后的自体骨移植,其骨愈合、功能及并发症发生率与无骨缺损且未进行增强的患者相比是否相当?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Jun 26. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003599.
7
TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: the Neo2 BAV Registry.使用ACURATE neo2经导管主动脉瓣植入术治疗重度二叶式主动脉瓣狭窄:Neo2二叶式主动脉瓣注册研究
EuroIntervention. 2025 Jan 20;21(2):e130-e139. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00869.
8
Comparison of aortic stiffness and hypertension in repaired coarctation patients with a bicuspid versus a tricuspid aortic valve.比较二叶式主动脉瓣与三叶式主动脉瓣修复后主动脉缩窄患者的主动脉僵硬度和高血压。
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2023 Jun 15;25(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12968-023-00941-0.
9
Redefining TAVR Valve Sizing: A Validated Multiplanar Approach for Both Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves.重新定义经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)瓣膜尺寸:一种针对二尖瓣和三尖瓣的经过验证的多平面方法。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jul 28;18(14):1748-1757. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2025.05.043.
10
Ascending Aortic Progression After Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients with Bicuspid and Tricuspid Aortic Valves.二叶式主动脉瓣和三叶式主动脉瓣患者主动脉瓣置换术后升主动脉进展。
Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jul 22;39(4):e20230438. doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0438.

本文引用的文献

1
Quadricuspid Aortic Valve: A Rare Case of Endocarditis Suspicion and Management.四叶式主动脉瓣:一例疑似心内膜炎及处理的罕见病例
Cureus. 2024 Jul 12;16(7):e64419. doi: 10.7759/cureus.64419. eCollection 2024 Jul.
2
Aortic aneurysms in a general population cohort: prevalence and risk factors in men and women.一般人群队列中的主动脉瘤:男性和女性的患病率及危险因素。
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024 Aug 26;25(9):1235-1243. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeae103.
3
An Unlucky Four-Leaf Clover Stenosis With a Single Coronary Artery.一例伴有单支冠状动脉的罕见四叶式主动脉瓣狭窄
Cureus. 2024 Jan 8;16(1):e51871. doi: 10.7759/cureus.51871. eCollection 2024 Jan.
4
Hemodynamics, anatomy, and outcomes of quadricuspid aortic valves: Multimodality imaging assessment.四叶式主动脉瓣的血流动力学、解剖结构及预后:多模态成像评估
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2024 Mar-Apr;18(2):179-186. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2024.01.008. Epub 2024 Jan 22.
5
Towards a gender-specific and morphology-specific assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity.迈向针对主动脉瓣狭窄严重程度的性别特异性和形态特异性评估。
Heart. 2024 Mar 22;110(8):543-544. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2023-323499.
6
Long-term outcome of bicuspid aortic valve disease.二叶式主动脉瓣病变的长期转归。
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024 Feb 22;25(3):425-435. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jead312.
7
2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies.2023年欧洲心脏病学会心肌病管理指南。
Eur Heart J. 2023 Oct 1;44(37):3503-3626. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194.
8
Bicuspid aortic valve: long-term morbidity and mortality.二叶式主动脉瓣:长期发病率和死亡率。
Eur Heart J. 2023 Nov 14;44(43):4549-4562. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad477.
9
Mechanisms of Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.二叶式主动脉瓣患者主动脉扩张的机制:美国心脏病学会现状评论。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 Aug 1;82(5):448-464. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.042.
10
Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy With Quadricuspid Aortic Valve.非缺血性扩张型心肌病合并四叶式主动脉瓣
Tex Heart Inst J. 2023 May 1;50(3). doi: 10.14503/THIJ-23-8109.