You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Updated 2017 European and American guidelines for prosthesis type and implantation mode in severe aortic stenosis
  1. Catherine M Otto1,
  2. Helmut Baumgartner2
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Division of Adult Congenital and Valvular Heart Disease, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Professor Catherine M Otto, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA; cmotto{at}uw.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312487

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Both the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines for management of adults with valvular heart disease have been updated this year in response to publication of new evidence justifying revised or new recommendations.1 2 In particular, more detailed guidance is provided for choice of valve prosthesis type and implantation mode in patients with severe valvular aortic stenosis (AS).

    Steps in decision making

    There are three distinct steps in decision making in adults with severe AS:

    • Step 1: assess AS severity, symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function and comorbid conditions to determine if the patient has an indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

    • Step 2: consider the risk–benefit balance of a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve based on anticoagulation and bleeding risk considerations, the risk of structural valve deterioration and redo surgery and expected patient longevity.

    • Step 3: if a bioprosthetic valve is preferred, consider whether transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical AVR (SAVR) is more appropriate for this patent.

    Assessment of AS severity

    Both guidelines acknowledge the complexity of AS assessment, emphasising that the current definition of severe AS includes:

    • high gradient severe AS (velocity 4 m/s or higher, mean gradient 40 mm Hg or higher)

    • low-flow low-gradient severe AS (velocity <4 m/s, mean gradient <40 mm Hg but valve area <1.0 cm2), with a low LV ejection fraction (EF)

    • low-flow low-gradient severe AS with a normal LV EF.

    In patients with severe AS and a high velocity/gradient, valve area usually is 1.0 cm2 or less, but this is not required for diagnosis in either guideline as long as a reversible high flow state has been excluded. Low-flow in this context is defined as a stroke volume index 35 mL/m2 or less. When LV EF is low (<0.50), severe AS is defined as an aortic velocity ≥4 m/s, without an increase …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.