2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease

Baumgartner, Helmut; Falk, Volkmar; Bax, Jeroen J.; Bonis, Michele De; Hamm, Christian W.; Holm, Per Johan; Iung, Bernard; Lancellotti, Patrizio; Lansac, Emmanuel; Muñoz, Daniel; Rosenhek, Raphaël; Sjögren, Johan; Mas, Pilar Tornos; Vahanian, Alec; Walther, Thomas; Wendler, Olaf; Windecker, Stephan; Zamorano, José Luís

doi:10.1016/j.rec.2017.12.013

Cited by 620 publications

(987 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

925

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for CardioThoracic Surgery (EACTS) on valvular heart diseases established that the choice for intervention, SAVR vs. TAVI, should be based on a careful evaluation of patients' procedural risk and technical suitability, thus a precise assessment of risks/benefits balance of each modality [3] . Importantly, local expertise and outcomes data for both surgical and percutaneous intervention must be carefully evaluated and the Heart Team has to play a fundamental role in the final therapeutic decision of AS patients.…”

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, local expertise and outcomes data for both surgical and percutaneous intervention must be carefully evaluated and the Heart Team has to play a fundamental role in the final therapeutic decision of AS patients. Thus, the selection of TAVI vs. SAVR should involve a multidisciplinary discussion between cardiologists, surgeons, imaging specialists, anesthesiologists, and other specialists if necessary [3] .…”

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In view of this, according to ESC guidelines, TAVI is recommended in all patients with severe symptomatic AS and a predicted survival greater than one year who are not eligible for SAVR (Class IB) [3] . Data supporting this indication has been presented in many European registries such as the CoreValve Extreme Risk Registry and from the randomized Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER valves (PARTNER I B) study [4][5][6][7] .…”

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current ESC guidelines also recommend that TAVI should be considered an alternative to SAVR in severe AS patients who are at high risk for mortality and complications after conventional surgery, thus those with STS or EuroSCORE II ≥ 4% or logistic EuroSCORE I ≥ 10% [3] . Of note, TAVI should be favored in elderly patients eligible for transfemoral access as suggested by registries and two important randomized controlled trials comparing TAVI vs. SAVR: the PARTNER I A trial, using a balloon-expandable device, and the CoreValve High-Risk study with a self-expandable valve [8,9] .…”

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Who is the next for aortic valve implantation? Present and future indications

Verolino¹,

Veneri²,

Carpenito³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) represents the most prevalent valvular defect worldwide. It is a progressive disease with a long latency interval and a poor prognosis after symptoms present. According to current European Society of Cardiology guidelines, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended in all patients with severe symptomatic AS and a predicted survival longer than one year, who are not suitable for surgical valve replacement. Despite these recommendations, several studies over the past few years suggest extending these indications towards lower risk AS populations. Otherwise, current available operative risk scores such as Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and EuroSCORE, may offer an incomplete risk assessment; in this setting, the Heart Team plays a crucial role in defining the most appropriate therapeutic strategy in patients with AS. In this review, we aim to discuss the current and future indications for TAVI, analyzing available literature according to patients' profile risk (high/mid/low risk) and other specific conditions (valve-in-valve, bicuspid valve and pure aortic regurgitation).

show abstract

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Guidelines Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who is the next for aortic valve implantation? Present and future indications

Verolino¹,

Veneri²,

Carpenito³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Las biopró-tesis no requieren anticoagulación, pero tienen riesgo de deterioro estructural con eventual necesidad de reintervención. La relación riesgo/beneficio entre estas dos opciones es el fundamento para el uso de prótesis mecánica en pacientes menores de 50 años, según recomendación de la American Heart Association (AHA) (2) , o menores de 60 años según recomendación de la European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (3) (ambas indicaciones IIa). El uso de bioprótesis ha aumentado significativamente en las últimas décadas en todos los grupos de edad (4) .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Sustitución valvular aórtica: ¿prótesis biológica o mecánica? Estudio comparativo de sobrevida a largo plazo

2018

Rev.Urug.Cardiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: tanto el uso de bioprótesis como de prótesis mecánicas en la sustitución valvular aórtica (SVA) tiene sus ventajas y desventajas en determinados grupos de pacientes. Datos internacionales no terminan de definir el beneficio a largo plazo de una u otra opción. Objetivo: estudiar el valor predictivo de sobrevida según el tipo de prótesis empleada en los pacientes sometidos a SVA. Métodos: se incluyeron pacientes operados de SVA aislada o asociada a cirugía de revascularización (CRM) desde enero de 2006 hasta diciembre de 2016. Se extrajeron las variables demográficas, operatorias y de seguimiento. Para disminuir la heterogeneidad entre ambos grupos se realizó un pareamiento por puntaje de propensión (PP). La sobrevida se evaluó de forma global y según estrato etario (< y ³ 60 años). Definimos el valor predictivo de sobrevida de cada tipo de prótesis mediante regresión de Cox. Resultados: se incluyeron 1.516 pacientes. Se implantó prótesis biológica a 1.230 pacientes (81,1%) y mecánica a 286 pacientes (18,9%). Se logró parear 145 pacientes en cada grupo. No se encontraron diferencias en la mortalidad operatoria ni en las complicaciones posoperatorias evaluadas (incidencia de accidente cerebrovascular [ACV], implante de marcapaso definitivo, requerimiento de diálisis, sangrado y complicaciones asociadas a la anticoagulación) tanto en la población global como luego del pareamiento. El uso de bioprótesis no fue predictor de sobrevida alejada en la población pareada por PP (HR=0,86, IC 95%: 0,51-1,4). En ninguno de los dos estratos etarios el tipo de prótesis fue predictor de sobrevida. Conclusión: en nuestro centro, en los pacientes sometidos a SVA la sobrevida a largo plazo es similar con ambos tipos de prótesis.

show abstract

Cardiovascular phenotypes predict clinical outcomes in sickle cell disease: An echocardiography‐based cluster analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to link cardiac phenotypes in homozygous Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) patients with clinical profiles and outcomes using cluster analysis. We analyzed data of 379 patients included in the French Etendard Cohort. A cluster analyses was performed based on echocardiographic variables, and the association between clusters, clinical profiles and outcomes was assessed. Three clusters were identified.

show abstract

2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease

Cited by 620 publications

References 55 publications

Who is the next for aortic valve implantation? Present and future indications

Who is the next for aortic valve implantation? Present and future indications

Sustitución valvular aórtica: ¿prótesis biológica o mecánica? Estudio comparativo de sobrevida a largo plazo

Cardiovascular phenotypes predict clinical outcomes in sickle cell disease: An echocardiography‐based cluster analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About