I think it would be a good idea -- would increase the statistics, but the errors ( due to incorrect diagnosis -- and perhaps also some due to incorrect projection in retrospect ) might be larger.Natanni said:Thank You Burair for posting this survey!! It would be interesting to do another as well, patients with BAV and their parents heart history;
I voted for Nathan, and our daughter has a 'suspicious' murmur, and they are treating her now as though she is bicuspid until proven otherwise so I voted her as being suspected. She has an appt for an echo in June by her Dad's doc. We have one son with no heart murmur.
Not that we are concerned with accuracy here ( we really cant be ), just to give some indication as to where things point -- plus underscore the necessity of testing our children. Even an anecdotal result like this might be somewhat convincing to many doctors in conversing with them.
The result as of this point is 2 out of 9 BAV parents have kids with BAV -- thats 22%, a whole order more than the 1 to 2% in the general population ( even discounting multiple kids with BAV in one family ). This paper:
Cripe L, Andelfinger G, Martin LJ, Shooner K, Benson DW Bicuspid aortic valve is heritable. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jul 7;44(1):138-43.
says their sample gives them a 24% prevalence. They dont differentiate between the sex of the parent and their hypothesis about the genetics of BAV is: varied genes produce BAV, and they construct their model using this hypothesis. I am no geneticist but I think there might be a simpler cause of BAV formation ( or perhaps a few simple ones ).
Also interesting in this poll is fyrfytr's message about one of his sons having MVP ( mitral valve prolapse ). The paper above links an increase in the occurance of other CVM ( cardiovascular malformation ) with the presense of BAV in the family.
Pretty interesting what you can find even with such limited statistics ( although we may have got a bit lucky with the way some of the numbers have panned out so far )