![]() Although there is a clearer rationale for screening relatives for BAV, the relative benefits and risks of screening for aortic dilation need to be considered in the context of clinical outcomes, and consideration given for how early aortic screening should start and for how long it should continue. ![]() As the authors discuss, the clinical implications associated with incidentally detected aortic dilation in a relative of a patient with BAV are not known. 7.0% risk ratio, 6.1) but in absolute terms affected more relatives with a tricuspid valve (200 of 2,749 screened relatives) than a BAV (91 of 485 screened relatives). The present meta-analysis found a 7.3% prevalence of BAV among all screened relatives (substantially higher than the estimated 0.5% prevalence in the general population) and a 9.4% prevalence of aortic dilation among relatives, which was more common in the presence of concomitant BAV than in its absence (29.2% vs. The netmeta package in R is based on a novel approach for network meta-analysis that follows the graph-theoretical methodology. Although estimates of the heritability of BAV and aortic dilation both are variable, current guidelines recommend screening first-degree relatives of patients with BAV. ![]() In addition, there is evidence that relatives of patients with BAV are at increased risk of aortic dilation even in the absence of BAV. The method successfully identified existing outliers in the simulated data. Although the prevalence of aortic dilatation was higher in relatives with BAV (29.2% 95% CI, 15.3%-45.1%) than in relatives with tricuspid aortic valve (7.0% 95% CI, 3.2%-12.0% ), aortic dilatation among relatives with a tricuspid aortic valve was a more frequent finding because there were many more family members with a tricuspid valve than a BAV.īAV is known to have a genetic basis in some patients. The prevalence of aortic dilatation among relatives (from 16 studies including 3,446 screened families) was 9.4% (95% CI, 5.7%-13.9%). ![]() The prevalence of BAV among all screened relatives was 7.3% (95% confidence interval, 6.1%-8.6%) overall and (from 13 studies including 1,100 screened families) per family was 23.6% (95% CI, 18.1%-29.5%). Most studies were prospective (21 of 23 studies) and recruited from single-center university teaching hospitals (18 of 23 studies) or were multicenter (3 studies). A total of 23 observational studies published between 19 met inclusion criteria and included 2,297 index cases (32 ± 21 years old, 71 ± 3.8% male) and 6,054 screened relatives (29 ± 13 years old, 50.6 ± 5.1% male). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |