Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Ó 2014 by the American Heart Association, Inc., and the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN 0735-1097/$36.00 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536
PRACTICE GUIDELINE 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Writing Rick A. Nishimura, MD, MACC, FAHA, Paul Sorajja, MD, FACC, FAHA# Committee Co-Chairy Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD***yy Members* Catherine M. Otto, MD, FACC, FAHA, James D. Thomas, MD, FASE, FACC, FAHAzz Co-Chairy *Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and Robert O. Bonow, MD, MACC, FAHAy other entities may apply; see Appendix 1 for recusal information. yACC/ y AHA representative. zACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Blase A. Carabello, MD, FACC* x { z liaison. ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines liaison. Society John P. Erwin III, MD, FACC, FAHA of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists representative. #Society for Cardio- Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC*x vascular Angiography and Interventions representative. **American ’ y Association for Thoracic Surgery representative. yySociety of Thoracic Patrick T. O Gara, MD, FACC, FAHA Surgeons representative. zzAmerican Society of Echocardiography Carlos E. Ruiz, MD, PHD, FACCy representative. Nikolaos J. Skubas, MD, FASE{
ACC/AHA Task Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACCxx Force Members Chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Richard J. Kovacs, MD, FACC, FAHA Chair-Elect E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC Susan J. Pressler, PHD, RN, FAHA Nancy M. Albert, PHD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Frank W. Sellke, MD, FACC, FAHA Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PHD, FACC, FAHA Win-Kuang Shen, MD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC William G. Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHAxx Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHAxx Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHAxx Lesley H. Curtis, PHD, FAHA xxFormer Task Force member during the writing effort. David DeMets, PHD
This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the Trustees and the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Committee in January 2014. Association (my.americanheart.org). For copies of this document, please contact the The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited as follows: Elsevier Inc. Reprint Department via fax (212) 633–3820 or e-mail reprints@ Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP III, Guyton RA, elsevier.com. O’Gara PT, Ruiz CE, Skubas NJ, Sorajja P, Sundt TM III, Thomas JD. 2014 AHA/ Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be completed online via on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:e57–185. the Elsevier site (http://www.elsevier.com/authors/obtaining-permission-to-re-use- This article has been copublished in Circulation. elsevier-material). e58 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
4.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e83 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.3.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e83 Preamble ...... e60 4.3.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS ...... e85 4.3.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP . . e85 1. Introduction ...... e62 4.3.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC CATHETERIZATION ...... e85 d 1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review ...... e62 4.3.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTING EXERCISE TESTING . . e85 4.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ...... e85 1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee .....e62 4.3.3. Timing of Intervention: 1.3. Document Review and Approval ...... e62 Recommendations ...... e86 1.4. Scope of the Guideline ...... e62 5. Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Aortopathy ...... e88 2. General Principles ...... e63
5.1. Bicuspid Aortic Valve 2.1. Evaluation of the Patient With ...... e88 Suspected VHD ...... e63 5.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e88 5.1.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: fi 2.2. De nitions of Severity of Valve Disease ....e64 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e88 2.3. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e64 5.1.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP: RECOMMENDATION ...... e89 2.3.1. Diagnostic Testing–Initial Diagnosis: 5.1.2. Medical Therapy ...... e89 Recommendation ...... e64 5.1.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e89 2.3.2. Diagnostic TestingdChanging Signs or Symptoms: Recommendation ...... e65 6. Mitral Stenosis ...... e90 2.3.3. Diagnostic TestingdRoutine Follow-Up: Recommendation ...... e65 6.1. Stages of MS ...... e90 2.3.4. Diagnostic TestingdCardiac 6.2. Rheumatic MS ...... e90 Catheterization: Recommendation ...... e65 2.3.5. Diagnostic TestingdExercise Testing: 6.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e90 6.2.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: Recommendation ...... e65 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e90 2.4. Basic Principles of Medical Therapy ...... e66 6.2.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR 2.4.1. Secondary Prevention of Rheumatic Fever: SYMPTOMS ...... e91 Recommendation ...... e66 6.2.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP . . e91 d 2.4.2. IE Prophylaxis: Recommendations ...... e67 6.2.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTING CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION ...... e92 2.5. Evaluation of Surgical and 6.2.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: Interventional Risk ...... e68 RECOMMENDATION ...... e93 2.6. The Heart Valve Team and Heart Valve Centers 6.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ...... e93 of Excellence: Recommendations ...... e69 6.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e94 6.3. Nonrheumatic MS ...... e96 3. Aortic Stenosis ...... e71 7. Mitral Regurgitation ...... e97 3.1. Stages of Valvular AS ...... e71 3.2. Aortic Stenosis ...... e71 7.1. Acute MR ...... e97 3.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e71 7.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e97 3.2.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: 7.1.2. Medical Therapy ...... e97 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e71 7.1.3. Intervention ...... e98 3.2.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR 7.2. Stages of Chronic MR ...... e98 SYMPTOMS ...... e73 7.3. Chronic Primary MR 3.2.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP . . e73 ...... e98 3.2.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC 7.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e98 CATHETERIZATION ...... e73 7.3.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: 3.2.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e98 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e74 7.3.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR 3.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ...... e74 SYMPTOMS ...... e101 3.2.3. Timing of Intervention: 7.3.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP ..e101 d Recommendations ...... e75 7.3.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTING CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION ...... e101 3.2.4. Choice of Intervention: Recommendation ...e79 7.3.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: RECOMMENDATIONS ...... e102 4. Aortic Regurgitation ...... e82 7.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . . . e102 7.3.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e102 4.1. Acute AR ...... e82 7.4. Chronic Secondary MR ...... e106 4.1.1. Diagnosis ...... e83 7.4.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 4.1.2. Intervention ...... e83 Recommendations ...... e106 4.2. Stages of Chronic AR ...... e83 7.4.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . . . e106 4.3. Chronic AR ...... e83 7.4.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e107 JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e59 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
8. Tricuspid Valve Disease ...... e107 12. Infective Endocarditis ...... e129
8.1. Stages of TR ...... e107 12.1. IE: Overview ...... e129 8.2. Tricuspid Regurgitation ...... e108 12.2. Infective Endocarditis ...... e129 8.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 12.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations ...... e108 Recommendations ...... e130 8.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . . . e111 12.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ..e134 8.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e111 12.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e135 8.3. Stages of Tricuspid Stenosis ...... e113 13. Pregnancy and VHD ...... e139 8.4. Tricuspid Stenosis ...... e113 8.4.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 13.1. Native Valve Stenosis: Recommendations ...... e113 Recommendations ...... e139 8.4.2. Medical Therapy ...... e113 13.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 8.4.3. Intervention: Recommendations ...... e113 Recommendation ...... e140 9. Pulmonic Valve Disease ...... e114 13.1.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ..e140 13.1.3. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e141 9.1. Stages of Pulmonic Regurgitation ...... e114 13.2. Native Valve Regurgitation ...... e143 9.2. Stages of Pulmonic Stenosis ...... e114 13.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations ...... e143 10. Mixed Valve Disease ...... e114 13.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendation ...e144 13.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e144 10.1. Mixed VHD ...... e114 13.3. Prosthetic Valves in Pregnancy ...... e145 10.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e114 13.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 10.1.2. Medical Therapy ...... e115 Recommendations ...... e145 10.1.3. Timing of Intervention ...... e115 13.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations ..e146 10.1.4. Choice of Intervention ...... e115 14. Surgical Considerations ...... e149 11. Prosthetic Valves ...... e116
11.1. Evaluation and Selection of 14.1. Evaluation of Coronary Anatomy: Prosthetic Valves ...... e116 Recommendations ...... e149 11.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 14.2. Concomitant Procedures ...... e151 Recommendations ...... e116 14.2.1. Intervention for CAD: 11.1.2. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e117 Recommendation ...... e151 11.2. Antithrombotic Therapy for 14.2.2. Intervention for AF: Prosthetic Valves ...... e119 Recommendations ...... e151 11.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e119 15. Noncardiac Surgery in Patients With VHD . . . e152 11.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . e120 11.3. Bridging Therapy for Prosthetic Valves . e122 15.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e152 11.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e122 15.2. Medical Therapy ...... e153 11.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . e122 15.3. Intervention: Recommendations 11.4. Excessive Anticoagulation and Serious ...... e153 Bleeding With Prosthetic Valves: 16. Evidence Gaps and Future Directions ...... e154 Recommendation ...... e123 d 11.5. Thromboembolic Events With 16.1. Prevention of Valve Disease Prosthetic Valves ...... e124 Stage A ...... e155 11.5.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e124 16.2. Medical Therapy to Treat or Prevent d 11.5.2. Medical Therapy ...... e124 Disease Progression Stage B ...... e155 11.5.3. Intervention ...... e125 16.3. Optimal Timing of Interventiond 11.6. Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis ...... e125 Stage C ...... e155 11.6.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: 16.4. Better Options for Interventiond Recommendations ...... e125 Stage D ...... e155 11.6.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations . . . e126 References ...... e156 11.6.3. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e127 11.7. Prosthetic Valve Stenosis ...... e127 Appendix 1. Author Relationships With 11.7.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e127 Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) ...... e178 11.7.2. Medical Therapy ...... e128 11.7.3. Intervention: Recommendation ...... e128 Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With 11.8. Prosthetic Valve Regurgitation ...... e128 Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) ...... e179 11.8.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up ...... e128 11.8.2. Medical Therapy ...... e128 Appendix 3. Abbreviations ...... e185 11.8.3. Intervention: Recommendations . . . . . e128 e60 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Preamble randomized, as appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are The medical profession should play a central role in based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are evaluating evidence related to drugs, devices, and pro- ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C cedures for detection, management, and prevention of are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate ref- disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of avail- erences (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. able data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and For issues with sparse available data, a survey of current procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize practice among the clinician members of the writing patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing committee is the basis for LOE C recommendations and resources on the most effective strategies. An organized no references are cited. and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence A new addition to this methodology is separation of has resulted in the production of clinical practice guide- the Class III recommendations to delineate whether the lines that assist clinicians in selecting the best manage- recommendation is determined to be of “no benefit” or is ment strategy for an individual patient. Moreover, clinical associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other of the increasing number of comparative effectiveness applications, such as performance measures, appropriate studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one decision support tools. treatment or strategy versus another are included for COR The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the I and IIa, LOE A or B only. American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly engaged In view of the advances in medical therapy across the in the production of guidelines in the area of cardiovascular spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has disease since 1980. The ACC/AHA Task Force on designated the term guideline-directed medical therapy Practice Guidelines (Task Force) directs this effort by (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for by ACC/AHA guideline (primarily Class I)-recommended cardiovascular diseases and procedures. therapies. This new term, GDMT, is used herein and Experts in the subject under consideration are selected throughout subsequent guidelines. from both ACC and AHA to examine subject-specific Because the ACC/AHA practice guidelines address data and write guidelines. Writing committees are specif- patient populations (and clinicians) residing in North ically charged with performing a literature review; weighing America, drugs that are not currently available in North the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, America are discussed in the text without a specific COR. treatments, or procedures; and including estimates of ex- For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside pected health outcomes where such data exist. Patient- North America, each writing committee reviews the po- specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient tential impact of different practice patterns and patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or ther- populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the apies are considered, as well as frequency of follow-up ACC/AHA target population to determine whether the and cost effectiveness. When available, information from findings should inform a specific recommendation. studies on cost is considered; however, a review of data on The ACC/AHA practice guidelines are intended to efficacy and outcomes constitutes the primary basis for assist clinicians in clinical decision making by describing preparing recommendations in this guideline. a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diag- In analyzing the data and developing recommendations nosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases and supporting text, the writing committee uses evidence- or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices based methodologies developed by the Task Force (1). that meet the needs of most patients in most circum- The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of stances. The ultimate judgment about care of a particular the size of the treatment effect, with consideration given patient must be made by the clinician and patient in to risks versus benefits, as well as evidence and/or agree- light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. ment that a given treatment or procedure is or is As a result, situations may arise in which deviations not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm. from these guidelines may be appropriate. Clinical de- The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the cer- cision making should involve consideration of the quality tainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing and availability of expertise in the area where care is committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis recommendation, with the weight of evidence ranked for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be as LOE A, B, or C, according to specificdefinitions. improvement in quality of care. The Task Force recog- The schema for the COR and LOE is summarized nizes that situations arise in which additional data are in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for needed to inform patient care more effectively; these writing recommendations within each COR. Studies are areas are identified within each respective guideline identified as observational, retrospective, prospective, or when appropriate. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e61 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence
A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective. *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. yFor comparative-effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.
Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these writing committee members and peer reviewers of the recommendations are effective only if followed. Because guideline are required to disclose all current healthcare- lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely related relationships, including those existing 12 months affect outcomes, clinicians should make every effort to before initiation of the writing effort. engage the patient’s active participation in prescribed In December 2009, the ACC and AHA implemented medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients a new RWI policy that requires the writing committee should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives chair plus a minimum of 50% of the writing committee to to a particular treatment and should be involved in shared have no relevant RWI (Appendix 1 includes the ACC/ decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR AHA definition of relevance). The Task Force and all IIa and IIb, for which the benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower. writing committee members review their respective RWI The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, po- disclosures during each conference call and/or meeting of tential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a the writing committee, and members provide updates to result of relationships with industry and other entities their RWI as changes occur. All guideline recommenda- (RWI) among the members of the writing committee. All tions require a confidential vote by the writing committee e62 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 and require approval by a consensus of the voting mem- other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Key bers. Authors’ and peer reviewers’ RWI pertinent to this search words included but were not limited to the guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2. Members following: valvular heart disease, aortic stenosis, aortic may not draft or vote on any recommendations pertaining regurgitation, bicuspid aortic valve, mitral stenosis, mitral to their RWI. Members who recused themselves from regurgitation, tricuspid stenosis, tricuspid regurgitation, pul- voting are indicated in the list of writing committee monic stenosis, pulmonic regurgitation, prosthetic valves, members with specific section recusals noted in Appendix 1. anticoagulation therapy, infective endocarditis, cardiac surgery, In addition, to ensure complete transparency, writing and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Additionally, the committee members’ comprehensive disclosure informa- committee reviewed documents related to the subject tiondincluding RWI not pertinent to this documentdis matter previously published by the ACC and AHA. The available as an online supplement. references selected and published in this document are Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task representative and not all-inclusive. Force is also available online at http://www.cardiosource.org/ en/ACC/About-ACC/Who-We-Are/Leadership/Guidelines 1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee -and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The ACC and AHA The committee was composed of clinicians, who included exclusively sponsor the work of the writing committee with- cardiologists, interventionalists, surgeons, and anesthesi- out commercial support. Writing committee members vol- ologists. The committee also included representatives from unteered their time for this activity. Guidelines are official the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American policy of both the ACC and AHA. Society of Echocardiography (ASE), Society for Cardio- In an effort to maintain relevance at the point of care for vascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Car- clinicians, the Task Force continues to oversee an ongoing diovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic process improvement initiative. As a result, several changes Surgeons (STS). to these guidelines will be apparent, including limited narrative text, a focus on summary and evidence tables 1.3. Document Review and Approval (with references linked to abstracts in PubMed), and more This document was reviewed by 2 official reviewers each liberal use of summary recommendation tables (with ref- nominated by both the ACC and the AHA, as well as 1 erences that support LOE) to serve as a quick reference. reviewer each from the American Association for Thoracic In April 2011, the Institute of Medicine released 2 re- Surgery, ASE, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography ports: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiol- Systematic Reviews and Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can ogists, and STS and 39 individual content reviewers Trust (2,3). It is noteworthy that the Institute of Medicine (which included representatives from the following ACC cited ACC/AHA practice guidelines as being compliant committees and councils: Adult Congenital and Pediatric with many of the proposed standards. A thorough review Cardiology Section, Association of International Gover- of these reports and of our current methodology is under nors, Council on Clinical Practice, Cardiovascular Section way, with further enhancements anticipated. Leadership Council, Geriatric Cardiology Section Lead- The recommendations in this guideline are considered ership Council, Heart Failure and Transplant Council, current until they are superseded by a focused update, Interventional Council, Lifelong Learning Oversight the full-text guideline is revised, or until a published Committee, Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Com- addendum declares it out of date and no longer official mittee, and Surgeon Council). Reviewers’ RWI informa- ACC/AHA policy. tion was distributed to the writing committee and is Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA published in this document (Appendix 2). Chair, ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACC and AHA and endorsed by 1. Introduction the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, ASE, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and STS. 1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review The recommendations listed in this document are, 1.4. Scope of the Guideline whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive review The focus of this guideline is the diagnosis and manage- was conducted on literature published through November ment of adult patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). 2012, and other selected references through October A full revision of the original 1998 VHD guideline was 2013 were reviewed by the guideline writing committee. made in 2006, and an update was made in 2008 (4). Some Searches were extended to studies, reviews, and other ev- recommendations from the earlier VHD guidelines have idence conducted on human subjects and that were pub- been updated as warranted by new evidence or a better lished in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, understanding of earlier evidence, whereas others that Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and were inaccurate, irrelevant, or overlapping were deleted JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e63 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline or modified. Throughout, our goal was to provide the Table 2. Associated Guidelines and Statements clinician with concise, evidence-based, contemporary rec- Publication Year/ ommendations and the supporting documentation to Title Organization Reference encourage their use. Recommendations for Evaluation of the ASE 2003 (5) This guideline was created in a different format from Severity of Native Valvular Regurgitation With Two-Dimensional and Doppler prior VHD guidelines to facilitate access to concise, rele- Echocardiography vant bytes of information at the point of care when clinical Guidelines for the Management of ACC/AHA 2008 (7) knowledge is needed the most. Thus, each COR is fol- Adults With Congenital Heart Disease lowed by a brief paragraph of supporting text and refer- Echocardiographic Assessment of Valve EAE/ASE 2009 (8) ences. Where applicable, sections were divided into Stenosis: EAE/ASE Recommendations for Clinical Practice subsections of 1) diagnosis and follow-up, 2) medical Recommendations for Evaluation of ASE 2009 (9) therapy, and 3) intervention. The purpose of these sub- Prosthetic Valves With Echocardiography sections was to categorize the COR according to the and Doppler Ultrasound clinical decision-making pathways that caregivers use in Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment ACCF/AHA 2011 (10) the management of patients with VHD. New recom- of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy mendations for assessment of the severity of valve lesions Guidelines on the Management of ESC 2011 (11) Cardiovascular Diseases During have been proposed, based on current natural history Pregnancy studies of patients with VHD. Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy ACCP 2012 (12) The present document applies to adult patients with for Valvular Disease: Antithrombotic VHD. Management of patients with congenital heart Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis disease and infants and children with valve disease are not Guidelines on the Management of Valvular ESC/EACTS 2012 (13) addressed here. The document recommends a combination Heart Disease fi Guideline for the Management of ACCF/AHA 2013 (14) of lifestyle modi cations and medications that constitute Heart Failure GDMT. Both for GDMT and other recommended drug Guideline for the Management of AHA/ACC/HRS 2014 (15) treatment regimens, the reader is advised to confirm dos- Patients With Atrial Fibrillation ages with product insert material and to carefully evaluate ACC indicates American College of Cardiology; ACCF, American College of Cardiology Foun- for contraindications and drug–drug interactions. Table 2 dation; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians; AF, atrial fibrillation; AHA, American Heart Association; ASE, American Society of Echocardiography; EACTS, European Association is a list of associated guidelines that may be of interest for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; EAE, European Association of Echocardiography; ESC, European to the reader. The table is intended for use as a resource Society of Cardiology; and VHD, valvular heart disease. and obviates the need to repeat extant guideline recommendations. comprehensive transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) with 2. General Principles 2–dimensional (2D) imaging and Doppler interrogation should then be performed to correlate findings with initial impressions based on the initial clinical evaluation. The 2.1. Evaluation of the Patient With TTE will also be able to provide additional information, Suspected VHD such as the effect of the valve lesion on the cardiac Patients with VHD may present with a heart murmur, chambers and great vessels, and to assess for other symptoms, or incidental findings of valvular abnormalities concomitant valve lesions. Other ancillary testing such as on chest imaging or noninvasive testing. Irrespective of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), computed to- presentation, all patients with known or suspected VHD mography (CT) or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) should undergo an initial meticulous history and physical imaging, stress testing, and diagnostic hemodynamic car- examination. A careful history is of great importance in the diac catheterization may be required to determine the evaluation of patients with VHD, because decisions about optimal treatment for a patient with VHD. An evaluation treatment are based on the presence or absence of symp- of the possible surgical risk for each individual patient toms. Due to the slow, progressive nature of many valve should be performed if intervention is contemplated, as lesions, patients may not recognize symptoms because they well as other contributing factors such as the presence and may have gradually limited their daily activity levels. A extent of comorbidities and frailty. Follow-up of these detailed physical examination should be performed to di- patients is important and should consist of an annual agnose and assess the severity of valve lesions based on a history and physical examination in most stable patients. compilation of all findings made by inspection, palpation, An evaluation of the patient may be necessary sooner than and auscultation. The use of an electrocardiogram (ECG) annually if there is a change in the patient’s symptoms. In to confirm heart rhythm and use of a chest x-ray to assess some valve lesions, there may be unpredictable adverse the presence or absence of pulmonary congestion and consequences on the left ventricle in the absence of other lung pathology may be helpful in the initial assess- symptoms necessitating more frequent follow-up. The ment of patients with known or suspected VHD. A frequency of repeat testing, such as echocardiography, will e64 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 be dependent on the severity of the valve lesion and its Table 3. Stages of Progression of VHD effect on the left or right ventricle, coupled with the Stage Definition Description known natural history of the valve lesion. A At risk Patients with risk factors for development of VHD B Progressive Patients with progressive VHD (mild-to-moderate 2.2. Definitions of Severity of Valve Disease severity and asymptomatic) Classification of the severity of valve lesions should be C Asymptomatic Asymptomatic patients who have the criteria for severe severe VHD: based on multiple criteria, including the initial findings on C1: Asymptomatic patients with severe VHD the physical examination, which should then be correlated in whom the left or right ventricle remains with data from a comprehensive TTE. Intervention should compensated primarily be performed on patients with severe VHD in C2: Asymptomatic patients with severe VHD addition to other criteria outlined in this document. with decompensation of the left or right ventricle This document provides a classification of the progres- D Symptomatic severe Patients who have developed symptoms as a sion of VHD with 4 stages (A to D) similar to that pro- result of VHD “ posed by the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the VHD indicates valvular heart disease. Management of Heart Failure.” Indication for intervention in patients with VHD is dependent on 1) the presence or absence of symptoms; 2) the severity of VHD; 3) the – response of the left and/or right ventricle to the volume or 2.3.1. Diagnostic Testing Initial Diagnosis: pressure overload caused by VHD; 4) the effect on the Recommendation pulmonary or systemic circulation; and 5) a change in heart CLASS I rhythm. The stages take into consideration all of these 1. TTE is recommended in the initial evaluation of patients with important factors (Table 3). The criteria for the stages known or suspected VHD to confirm the diagnosis, establish of each individual valve lesion are listed in Section 3 etiology, determine severity, assess hemodynamic conse- quences, determine prognosis, and evaluate for timing of (Table 8), Section 4.2 (Table 11), Section 6.1 (Table 13), intervention (17–32). (Level of Evidence: B) Section 7.2 (Tables 15 and 16), and Section 8.1 (Table 19), Section 8.3 (Table 20), Section 9.1 (Table 21), and Section 9.2 TTE is now the standard diagnostic test in the initial (Table 22). evaluation of patients with known or suspected VHD. The purpose of valvular intervention is to improve Echocardiographic imaging can accurately assess the symptoms and/or prolong survival, as well as to minimize morphology and motion of valves and can usually deter- the risk of VHD-related complications such as asymp- mine the etiology of the VHD. TTE can also assess for tomatic irreversible ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary concomitant disease in other valves and associated abnor- hypertension, stroke, and atrial fibrillation (AF). Thus, the malities such as aortic dilation. Left ventricular (LV) criteria for “severe” VHD are based on studies describing chamber size and function can be reliably assessed. It is the the natural history of patients with unoperated VHD, as LV linear dimensions from echocardiography, either from well as observational studies relating the onset of symptoms 2D images or 2D-directed M-mode, that have been used to measurements of severity. In patients with stenotic le- in studies to determine timing of valve operation. Until sions, there is an additional category of “very severe” ste- further studies are available using LV volumes, the rec- nosis based on studies of the natural history showing that ommendations in this guideline will refer to LV di- prognosis becomes poorer as the severity of stenosis mensions. It is also important to understand the variability increases. in measurements of LV dimensions so that decisions on Supporting References: (14). intervention are based on sequential studies rather than a single study, especially in asymptomatic patients. A semi- quantitative assessment of right ventricular (RV) size and 2.3. Diagnosis and Follow-Up function is usually made by a visual subjective analysis. Diagnostic testing is very important for the diagnosis and Doppler TTE is used for noninvasive determination of treatment of patients with VHD. TTE provides valve hemodynamics. In stenotic lesions, measurements of morphological and hemodynamic information for diag- the peak velocity, as well as calculation of valve gradients nosis and quantitation of VHD, as well as for determining and valve area, characterize the severity of the lesion. He- optimal timing for intervention. In selected patients, modynamic measurements can be performed at rest and additional testing such as stress testing, TEE, cardiac during provocation. The quantitation of the severity of catheterization, and CT or CMR imaging might be valve regurgitation is based on multiple hemodynamic indicated. However, both the performance and interpre- parameters using color Doppler imaging of jet geometry, tation of these diagnostic tests require meticulous attention continuous wave Doppler recordings of the regurgitant to detail as well as expertise in cardiac imaging and eval- flow, and pulsed wave Doppler measures of transvalvular uation of hemodynamics. volume flow rates and flow reversals in the atria and great JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e65 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline vessels. The hemodynamic effect of valve lesions on the 2.3.4. Diagnostic TestingdCardiac Catheterization: pulmonary circulation can be determined using tricuspid Recommendation regurgitation (TR) velocity to provide a noninvasive mea- CLASS I surement of RV systolic pressure. TTE quantitation of 1. Cardiac catheterization for hemodynamic assessment is rec- valve stenosis and valve regurgitation has been validated ommended in symptomatic patients when noninvasive tests are against catheterization data, in animal models with direct inconclusive or when there is a discrepancy between the find- measures of disease severity, and in prospective clinical ings on noninvasive testing and physical examination regarding studies using valve replacement and mortality as the pri- severity of the valve lesion. (Level of Evidence: C) mary endpoint. On the basis of their value in predicting Although TTE (and in some instances TEE) is now clinical outcomes, these echocardiographic parameters are able to provide the required anatomic and hemodynamic now used to determine timing of valve intervention in information in most patients with VHD, there is still a conjunction with symptom status. – subset of patients in whom hemodynamic catheterization is Supporting References: (17 32) necessary to ensure that the proper decision about treat- 2.3.2. Diagnostic TestingdChanging Signs or Symptoms: ment is made. TTE may provide erroneous or inadequate Recommendation information in some patients. Severity of stenosis may be underestimated when imaging is difficult or when the CLASS I 1. TTE is recommended in patients with known VHD with any Doppler beam is not directed parallel to the valvular jet change in symptoms or physical examination findings. (Level of velocities. TTE quantitation of valve regurgitation shows Evidence: C) considerable variability in measurement, and severity of disease may be overestimated or underestimated if image or Patients with VHD should be instructed to always Doppler data quality is suboptimal. If there are inconclu- report any change in symptomatic status. Patients with sive, noninvasive data, particularly in the symptomatic known VHD who have a change in symptoms should patient, or if there is a discrepancy between the noninvasive undergo a repeat comprehensive TTE study to determine tests and clinical findings, a hemodynamic cardiac cathe- whether the etiology of the symptoms is due to a pro- terization is indicated. The measurements of valve gradients gression in the valve lesion, deterioration of the ventricular and cardiac output are important for assessing valve stenosis. response to the volume or pressure overload, or another Contrast angiography is still useful for a semiquantitative etiology. New signs on physical examination also warrant a assessment of the severity of regurgitation in those instances fi repeat TTE. The ndings on TTE will be important in in which the noninvasive results are discordant with the determining the timing of intervention. physical examination. A major advantage of cardiac cathe- – Supporting References: (33 40) terization is the measurement of intracardiac pressures and 2.3.3. Diagnostic TestingdRoutine Follow-Up: pulmonary vascular resistance, which may further aid in Recommendation decision making about valve intervention. Diagnostic in- terventions that can be performed in the catheterization CLASS I fl 1. Periodic monitoring with TTE is recommended in asymptom- laboratory include the use of dobutamine in low- ow states, atic patients with known VHD at intervals depending on valve pulmonary vasodilators in pulmonary hypertension, and lesion, severity, ventricular size, and ventricular function. exercise hemodynamics in patients with discrepant symp- (Level of Evidence: C) toms. It must be emphasized that there is no longer a “routine” cardiac catheterization. Patients who come to the After initial evaluation of an asymptomatic patient with catheterization laboratory present complex diagnostic VHD, the clinician may decide to continue close follow- challenges because the noninvasive testing in these patients up. The purpose of close follow-up is to prevent the irre- has not provided all pertinent information. Thus, hemo- versible consequences of severe VHD that primarily affect dynamic catheterization needs to be done with meticulous the status of the ventricles and pulmonary circulation and attention to detail and performed by persons with knowl- may also occur in the absence of symptoms. At a mini- edge and expertise in assessing patients with VHD. mum, the follow-up should consist of a yearly history Supporting References: (42,43) and physical examination. Periodic TTE monitoring also provides important prognostic information. The frequency 2.3.5. Diagnostic TestingdExercise Testing: of a repeat 2D and Doppler echocardiogram is based on Recommendation the type and severity of the valve lesion, the known rate CLASS IIa of progression of the specific valve lesion, and the effect of 1. Exercise testing is reasonable in selected patients with fi the valve lesion on the affected ventricle (Table 4). This asymptomatic severe VHD to 1) con rm the absence of symp- toms, or 2) assess the hemodynamic response to exercise, or table does not refer to patients with stage D VHD, who 3) determine prognosis (44–48). (Level of Evidence: B) will usually undergo intervention, as will other select patient populations with stage C VHD. In a subset of patients, exercise stress testing will be of Supporting References: (22,29,32–35,37–41) additional value in determining optimal therapy. Because e66 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 4. Frequency of Echocardiograms in Asymptomatic Patients With VHD and Normal Left Ventricular Function
Stage Valve Lesion
Stage Aortic Stenosis* Aortic Regurgitation Mitral Stenosis Mitral Regurgitation Progressive Every 3–5y Every 3–5 y (mild severity) Every 3–5y Every 3–5 y (mild severity) 2 (stage B) (mild severity Vmax 2.0–2.9 m/s) Every 1–2 y (moderate severity) (MVA >1.5 cm ) Every 1–2 y (moderate severity) Every 1–2y
(moderate severity Vmax 3.0–3.9 m/s) Severe Every 6–12 mo Every 6–12 mo Every 1–2y Every 6–12 mo 2 (stage C) (Vmax 4 m/s) Dilating LV: more frequently (MVA 1.0–1.5 cm ) Dilating LV: more frequently Once every year (MVA <1.0 cm2)
Patients with mixed valve disease may require serial evaluations at intervals earlier than recommended for single valve lesions. *With normal stroke volume.
LV indicates left ventricle; MVA, mitral valve area; VHD, valvular heart disease; and Vmax, maximum velocity. of the slow, insidious rate of progression of many Rheumatic fever prophylaxis and infective endocarditis valve lesions, patients may deny symptoms as they grad- (IE) prophylaxis should be given to appropriate groups ually limit their activity level over years to match the of patients as outlined in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. gradual limitation imposed by the valve lesion. In pa- The maintenance of optimal oral health remains the tients with an equivocal history of symptoms, exercise most important component of an overall healthcare pro- testing helps identify those who are truly symptomatic. gram in preventing IE. Influenza and pneumococcal vac- There may be patients in whom resting hemodynamics cinations should be given to appropriate patient groups do not correlate with symptoms. In these patients, exer- with VHD. cise hemodynamics may be helpful in determining the Supporting Reference: (49) fi etiology of the symptoms, speci cally in patients with 2.4.1. Secondary Prevention of Rheumatic Fever: mitral VHD. Exercise stress testing is of prognostic value Recommendation in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) and provides further information about timing of Rheumatic fever is an important cause of VHD. In the intervention. Exercise testing in patients with severe United States, acute rheumatic fever has been uncommon VHD should always be performed by trained operators since the 1970s. However, there has been an increase in with continuous monitoring of the ECG and blood the number of cases of rheumatic fever since 1987. Un- pressure (BP). derstanding of the causative organism, group A Strepto- Supporting References: (44–48) coccus, has been enhanced by the development of kits that allow rapid detection of this organism. Prompt recognition 2.4. Basic Principles of Medical Therapy and treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis constitute pri- mary prevention of rheumatic fever. For patients with All patients being evaluated for VHD should also undergo previous episodes of well-documented rheumatic fever or GDMT for other risk factors associated with cardiac dis- in those with evidence of rheumatic heart disease, long- ease. These include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and fi term antistreptococcal prophylaxis is indicated for sec- hyperlipidemia. The safety and ef cacy of an exercise ondary prevention. program for patients with VHD has not been established, Supporting Reference: (50) but patients will benefit from an exercise prescription in which a regular aerobic exercise program is followed to CLASS I 1. Secondary prevention of rheumatic fever is indicated in patients ensure cardiovascular fitness. Although heavy isometric with rheumatic heart disease, specifically mitral stenosis (MS) repetitive training will increase the afterload on the LV, (Tables 5 and 6) (50). (Level of Evidence: C) resistive training with small free weights or repetitive iso- lated muscle training may be used to strengthen individual Recurrent rheumatic fever is associated with a wors- muscle groups. ening of rheumatic heart disease. However, infection Most patients with LV systolic dysfunction and severe with group A Streptococcus does not have to be symp- VHD should undergo intervention for the valve itself. tomatic to trigger a recurrence, and rheumatic fever can However, if the decision has been made for medical recurevenwhenthesymptomatic infection is treated. therapy, these patients should receive the GDMT drug Prevention of recurrent rheumatic fever requires long- therapy for LV systolic dysfunction, including angiotensin- term antimicrobial prophylaxis rather than recognition converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin- and treatment of acute episodes of group A Streptococcus receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-adrenergic blockers. pharyngitis. The recommended treatment regimens and Care must be taken to not abruptly lower BP in patients duration of secondary prophylaxis are shown in Tables 5 with stenotic lesions. and 6.InpatientswithdocumentedVHD,theduration JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e67 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 5. Secondary Prevention of Rheumatic Fever Table 6. Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Fever Agent Dosage Penicillin G benzathine 1.2 million units IM every 4 wk* Type Duration After Last Attack Penicillin V potassium 200 mg orally BID Rheumatic fever with carditis 10 y or until patient is 40 y of age Sulfadiazine 1 g orally once daily and residual heart disease (whichever is longer) (persistent VHD*) Macrolide or azalide antibiotic (for patients Varies allergic to penicillin and sulfadiazine)y Rheumatic fever with carditis 10 y or until patient is 21 y of age but no residual heart disease (whichever is longer) *Administration every 3 wk is recommended in certain high-risk situations. (no valvular disease*) yMacrolide antibiotics should not be used in persons taking other medications that inhibit cy- tochrome P450 3A, such as azole antifungal agents, HIV protease inhibitors, and some se- Rheumatic fever without carditis 5 y or until patient is 21 y of age lective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. (whichever is longer) Adapted from Gerber et al. (50). BID indicates twice daily; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; and IM, intramuscularly. *Clinical or echocardiographic evidence. Adapted from Gerber et al. (50). VHD indicates valvular heart disease. of rheumatic fever prophylaxis should be at least 10 years or until the patient is 40 years of age (whichever is prosthetic valves) should be treated. Furthermore, evi- longer). dence for prophylaxis has only been found to be 2.4.2. IE Prophylaxis: Recommendations reasonable in dental procedures that involve manipula- tion of gingival tissue, manipulation of the periapical Because of the lack of published evidence on the use of region of teeth, or perforation of the oral mucosa. In the prophylactic antibiotics to prevent IE, the value of anti- case of other prosthetic material (excluding surgically biotic prophylaxis has been questioned by several national created palliative systemic-pulmonary shunts or conduits) and international medical societies. Antibiotic prophylaxis such as annuloplasty rings, neochords, Amplatzer de- is now indicated for only a subset of patients who are at vices, and MitraClips, there have been only sporadic case high risk for developing IE and at highest risk for an reports of infected devices. Given the low infection rate adverse outcome if IE occurs. The maintenance of optimal and scarcity of data, there is no definitive evidence that oral health care remains the most effective intervention to prophylaxis in these patients is warranted in the absence prevent future valve infection. – of the patient having other high risks of intracardiac Supporting References: (51 53) infection. CLASS IIa There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or 1. Prophylaxis against IE is reasonable for the following patients large observational cohort studies for prophylaxis in pati- at highest risk for adverse outcomes from IE before dental ents with a previous episode of IE, but given the cumulative procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue, manip- risks of mortality with repeated infection, the potentially ulation of the periapical region of teeth, or perforation of the oral disabling complications from repeated infections, and the mucosa (54–56) (Level of Evidence: B): Patients with prosthetic cardiac valves; relatively low risk of prophylaxis, prophylaxis for IE has Patients with previous IE; been recommended in this high-risk group of patients. IE Cardiac transplant recipients with valve regurgitation due to is substantially more common in heart transplant recipi- a structurally abnormal valve; or ents than in the general population. The risk of IE is Patients with congenital heart disease with: highest in the first 6 months after transplantation due to B Unrepaired cyanotic congenital heart disease, including endothelium disruption, high-intensity immunosuppres- palliative shunts and conduits; sive therapy, frequent central venous catheter access, and B Completely repaired congenital heart defect repaired with endomyocardial biopsies. If there is a structurally abnormal prosthetic material or device, whether placed by surgery valve, IE prophylaxis should be continued indefinitely, fi or catheter intervention, during the rst 6 months after given the high risk of IE in post-transplant patients. the procedure; or In patients in whom IE prophylaxis is reasonable, give B Repaired congenital heart disease with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prophylaxis before dental procedures that involve manip- prosthetic device. ulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or cause perforation of the oral mucosa. Bacteremia com- The risk of IE is significantly higher in patients with a monly occurs during activities of daily living such as history of prosthetic valve replacement. Even in those routine brushing of the teeth or chewing. Persons at risk patients at high risk for IE, the evidence for significant for developing bacterial IE should establish and maintain reductionineventswithprophylaxisisconflicting. This the best possible oral health to reduce potential sources of lack of supporting evidence along with the risk of bacterial seeding. Optimal oral health is maintained anaphylaxis and increasing bacterial resistance to anti- through regular professional dental care and the use of microbials led to a significant revision in the AHA rec- appropriate dental products, such as manual, powered, and ommendations for prophylaxis so that only those patients ultrasonic toothbrushes; dental floss; and other plaque- at the highest risk of developing IE (e.g., those with removal devices. There is no evidence for IE prophylaxis e68 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 in gastrointestinal procedures or genitourinary procedures patients with bacteriuria should be attempted before elec- absent known enterococcal infection. tive procedures, including lithotripsy. Results of a pre- Multiple epidemiological studies show no increase in procedure urine culture will allow the clinician to choose the rate of IE since adoption of the AHA and European antibiotics appropriate for the recovered organisms. Society of Cardiology guidelines recommending more Supporting References: (61–73) restrictive use of IE prophylaxis. The NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, United 2.5. Evaluation of Surgical and Kingdom) guidelines took an even more radical departure Interventional Risk from the previous prophylaxis standards in not recom- The decision to intervene, as well as the type of inter- mending antibiotic prophylaxis for dental or nondental vention for a patient with severe VHD, should be based on procedures (e.g., respiratory, gastrointestinal, and genito- an individual risk–benefit analysis. The risk of the proce- urinary). Similarly, subsequent epidemiological studies dure and intermediate-term mortality must be weighed performed in the wake of the NICE guideline revisions against the benefits of the procedure in altering the natural have demonstrated no increase in clinical cases or history of the disease and acknowledging the long-term deaths from IE. For the recommended choice of antibi- consequences of the intervention. Operative mortality can otic regimen when IE prophylaxis is recommended, see be estimated from a number of different scoring systems http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@hcm/ by using a combination of risk factors such as the STS documents/downloadable/ucm_307644.pdf. risk estimate or Euroscore (http://www.euroscore.org/). Supporting References: (50–59) There are limitations to these scores, including that they derive only from surgical patients and that they do not CLASS III: No Benefit take into consideration procedure-specific impediments, 1. Prophylaxis against IE is not recommended in patients with major organ system compromise, comorbidities, or the VHD who are at risk of IE for nondental procedures (e.g., TEE, frailty of the patient. A risk-assessment scheme com- esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or cystoscopy) in bining these factors is presented in Table 7.TheSTS the absence of active infection (60). (Level of Evidence: B) risk estimate is an accepted tool to predict the risk of a The incidence of IE following most procedures in pa- surgical operation. In an analysis of aortic valve operations tients with underlying cardiac disease is low, and there is a in the STS database from 2002 to 2010, 80% of patients lack of controlled data supporting the benefit of antibiotic had a predicted risk of mortality (PROM) of <4% and an prophylaxis. Furthermore, the indiscriminate use of anti- actual mean mortality rate of 1.4%. Fourteen percent had biotics can be associated with the development of resistant a PROM of 4% to 8% and an actual mean mortality rate organisms, Clostridium difficile colitis, unnecessary expense, of 5.1%, and 6% of patients had a PROM of >8% and an and drug toxicity. The risk of IE as a direct result of a actual mortality rate of 11.1%. Other factors such as the flexible endoscopic procedure is small. Transient bacter- frailty of the patient, major organ system compromise, emia may occur during or immediately after endoscopy; and procedure-specific impediments must be taken into however, there are few reports of IE attributable to consideration. A number of mechanisms to evaluate endoscopy. For most gastrointestinal endoscopic pro- frailty assess the ability to perform activities of daily living cedures, the rate of bacteremia is 2% to 5%, and organisms (independence in feeding, bathing, dressing, transferring, typically identified are unlikely to cause IE. The rate of toileting, urinary continence, etc.) and measurements of bacteremia does not increase with mucosal biopsy, poly- gait speed, grip strength, and muscle mass. Published pectomy, or sphincterotomy. There are no data to indicate frailty scores are available, but a limited evaluation may that deep biopsy, such as that performed in the rectum or use the following: no frailty (able to perform all activities stomach, leads to a higher rate of bacteremia. The rate of of daily living and perform a 5–meter walk in <6sec- transient bacteremia is more commonly seen in routine onds), mild degree of frailty (unable to perform 1 activity activities such as brushing teeth and flossing (20% to 68%), of daily living or unable to perform a 5–meter walk in <6 using toothpicks (20% to 40%), and simply chewing food seconds), and moderate-to-severe degree of frailty (unable (7% to 51%). Some gastrointestinal procedures, such as to perform 2 activities of daily living). Further research esophageal dilation (as high as 45%), sclerotherapy (31%), is required to enhance the predictive accuracy of current and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (6% risk scores, particularly in patients undergoing trans- to 18%) have higher rates of bacteremia than simple catheter therapy. The overall risks versus benefits should endoscopy. However, no studies indicate reduced rates of then be discussed with the patient and family using a IE with antibiotic prophylaxis. shared decision-making process. Surgery, instrumentation, or diagnostic procedures In addition to the risk classification in Table 7,itis that involve the genitourinary tract may cause bacteremia. appropriate to defer any type of intervention in patients The rate of bacteremia following urinary tract procedures who will not benefit in terms of symptoms or improved life is high in the presence of urinary tract infection. Sterili- span from the procedure. This group of patients in whom zation of the urinary tract with antimicrobial therapy in surgical or transcatheter intervention for severe VHD is JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e69 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 7. Risk Assessment Combining STS Risk Estimate, Frailty, Major Organ System Dysfunction, and Procedure-Specific Impediments
Low Risk Intermediate Risk High Risk Prohibitive Risk (Must Meet ALL Criteria (Any 1 Criterion (Any 1 Criterion (Any 1 Criterion in This Column) in This Column) in This Column) in This Column) STS PROM* <4% 4%–8% >8% Predicted risk with surgery AND OR OR of death or major morbidity Frailtyy None 1 Index (mild) 2 Indices (all-cause) >50% at 1 y AND OR (moderate to severe) OR OR Major organ system compromise None 1 Organ system No more than 2 organ 3 Organ systems not to be improved postoperativelyz AND OR systems OR OR Procedure-specific None Possible procedure-specific Possible procedure-specific Severe procedure-specific impedimentx impediment impediment impediment
*Use of the STS PROM to predict risk in a given institution with reasonable reliability is appropriate only if institutional outcomes are within 1 standard deviation of STS average observed/expected ratio for the procedure in question. ySeven frailty indices: Katz Activities of Daily Living (independence in feeding, bathing, dressing, transferring, toileting, and urinary continence) and independence in ambulation (no walking aid or assist required or 5-meter walk in <6 s). Other scoring systems can be applied to calculate no, mild-, or moderate-to-severe frailty. zExamples of major organ system compromise: Cardiacdsevere LV systolic or diastolic dysfunction or RV dysfunction, fixed pulmonary hypertension; CKD stage 3 or worse; pulmonary dysfunction with
FEV1 <50% or DLCO2 <50% of predicted; CNS dysfunction (dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, CVA with persistent physical limitation); GI dysfunctiondCrohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, nutritional impairment, or serum albumin <3.0; cancerdactive malignancy; and liverdany history of cirrhosis, variceal bleeding, or elevated INR in the absence of VKA therapy. xExamples: tracheostomy present, heavily calcified ascending aorta, chest malformation, arterial coronary graft adherent to posterior chest wall, or radiation damage.
CKD indicates chronic kidney disease; CNS, central nervous system; CVA, stroke; DLCO2, diffusion capacity for carbon dioxide; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; GI, gastrointestinal; INR, international normalized ratio; LV, left ventricular; PROM, predicted risk of mortality; RV, right ventricular; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; and VKA, vitamin K antagonist. futile are those with 1) a life expectancy of <1 year, even difficult decision making in terms of risk–benefit analysis. with a successful procedure, and 2) those who have a Patient care should be customized to the patient’s needs, chance of “survival with benefit” of <25% at 2 years. values, and expectations. Survival with benefit means survival with improvement A competent practicing cardiologist should have the by at least 1 New York Heart Association (NYHA) or ability to diagnose and direct the treatment of most pati- Canadian Cardiovascular Society class in heart failure ents with VHD. For instance, otherwise healthy patients (HF) or angina symptoms, improvement in quality of life, with severe VHD who become symptomatic should nearly or improvement in life expectancy. Those patients with always be considered for intervention. However, more severe frailty may fall into this category. complex decision-making processes may be required in Supporting References: (41,74–78) select patient populations, such as those who have asymptomatic severe VHD, those who are at high risk for 2.6. The Heart Valve Team and Heart Valve intervention, or those who could benefit from specialized Centers of Excellence: Recommendations therapies such as valve repair or transcatheter valve The number of patients presenting with VHD in devel- intervention. oped countries is growing, primarily due to the increasing The management of patients with complex severe VHD age of the population. In addition, more patients with is best achieved by a Heart Valve Team composed pri- VHD are referred to cardiovascular specialists due to marily of a cardiologist and surgeon (including a structural enhanced awareness of various treatments, as well as valve interventionist if a catheter-based therapy is being improved noninvasive imaging tests. When patients with considered). In selected cases, there may be a multidisci- VHD are referred for intervention in a timely manner, plinary, collaborative group of caregivers, including cardi- there is an improved outcome in preservation of ventricular ologists, structural valve interventionalists, cardiovascular function as well as enhanced survival. However, the man- imaging specialists, cardiovascular surgeons, anesthesiolo- agement of patients with VHD is becoming increasingly gists, and nurses, all of whom have expertise in the man- complex, due to the use of more sophisticated noninvasive agement and outcomes of patients with complex VHD. imaging modalities and technological advances in thera- The Heart Valve Team should optimize patient selection pies. These advances result in changing thresholds for valve for available procedures through a comprehensive under- interventions. There remain a number of patients who are standing of the risk–benefit ratio of different treatment referred for intervention too late in the course of their strategies. This is particularly beneficial in patients in disease or not referred at all, either of which results in poor whom there are several options for treatment, such as the long-term outcomes. Alternatively, intervention in the elderly high-risk patient with severe symptomatic AS being asymptomatic patient requires expertise in evaluation and considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement noninvasive imaging assessment. The advent of trans- (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The catheter valve therapies has transformed the treatment of patient and family should be sufficiently educated by the elderly high-risk patients with severe VHD but imposes Heart Valve Team about all alternatives for treatment so e70 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 that their expectations can be met as fully as possible using CLASS IIa a shared decision-making approach. 1. Consultation with or referral to a Heart Valve Center of Excellence The optimal care of the patient with complex heart is reasonable when discussing treatment options for 1) asymp- fi disease is best performed in centers that can provide all tomatic patients with severe VHD, 2) patients who may bene t available options for diagnosis and management, including from valve repair versus valve replacement, or 3) patients with multiple comorbidities for whom valve intervention is considered. the expertise for complex aortic or mitral valve repair, aortic (Level of Evidence: C) surgery, and transcatheter therapies. This has led to the development of Heart Valve Centers of Excellence. Heart With the advent of newer surgical techniques and Valve Centers of Excellence 1) are composed of experi- lower rates of operative mortality, it is reasonable to lower enced healthcare providers with expertise from multiple the threshold for valve intervention to prevent the adverse disciplines; 2) offer all available options for diagnosis and consequences of severe VHD, particularly in the asymp- management, including complex valve repair, aortic sur- tomatic patient with severe VHD. However, the overall gery, and transcatheter therapies; 3) participate in regional benefit of operating on these patients requires that the or national outcome registries; 4) demonstrate adherence patient be evaluated by those with expertise in assessment to national guidelines; 5) participate in continued evalua- of VHD and that they undergo operation in a center tion and quality improvement processes to enhance patient with low operative mortality and excellent patient out- outcomes; and 6) publicly report their available mortality comes. If a “watchful waiting” approach is taken in and success rates. Decisions about intervention at the asymptomatic patients with severe VHD, a Heart Valve Heart Valve Centers of Excellence should be dependent on Center of Excellence may be beneficial in ensuring proper the centers’ publicly available mortality rates and operative follow-up. outcomes. It is recognized that some Heart Valve Centers Surgical outcomes depend on the expertise and expe- of Excellence may have expertise in select valve problems. rience of the surgeons, especially with highly specialized CLASS I operations such as complex mitral valve repair and surgical 1. Patients with severe VHD should be evaluated by a multidisci- treatment of aortic disease. It is well documented that plinary Heart Valve Team when intervention is considered. operative risks and outcomes are better for patients un- (Level of Evidence: C) dergoing mitral valve repair versus mitral valve replace- Decisions about selection and timing of interventions ment (MVR) in patients with primary mitral regurgitation for patients with severe VHD are best done through the (MR) and morphology suitable for repair. Although the Heart Valve Team. The Heart Valve Team is composed rate of mitral valve repair has increased, a number of pa- primarily of a cardiologist and surgeon (including a tients with primary MR will still undergo MVR. The rate structural valve interventionist if a catheter-based therapy is of successful mitral valve repair in patients with primary being considered). In selected cases, there may be a MR is dependent on the experience of the surgeon as well multidisciplinary, collaborative group of caregivers, as the surgical volume. Optimal outcomes are best ach- including cardiologists, structural valve interventionalists, ieved in Heart Valve Centers of Excellence dedicated to cardiovascular imaging specialists, cardiovascular surgeons, the management and treatment of patients with VHD anesthesiologists, and nurses, many of whom have exper- and that offer all available treatment options, including tise in the management and outcomes of patients with complex valve repair, aortic surgery, and transcatheter complex VHD. For patients with infections of the heart, therapies. At Heart Valve Centers of Excellence, health- infectious disease specialists should be involved. For care providers have experience and expertise from multiple pregnant women, high-risk obstetrics should be involved. disciplines, demonstrate adherence to national guidelines, The Heart Valve Team 1) reviews the patient’s medical participate in regional or national outcome registries, and condition and valve abnormality, 2) determines the publicly report their available mortality and success rates possible interventions that are indicated, technically with a continued quality improvement program in place. feasible, and reasonable, and 3) discusses the risks and Decisions on early operation in the asymptomatic pati- outcomes of these interventions with the patient and ent can then be made based on the reported data from family. This approach has been used for patients with the specific Heart Valve Center of Excellence, in- complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and is supported cluding mortality and morbidity statistics as well as du- by reports that patients with complex CAD referred spe- rable repair rates for patients with primary MR. Heart cifically for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or Valve Centers of Excellence have also been shown to in- coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in concurrent crease the proportion of patients managed according to trial registries using a heart team approach have lower GDMT, decrease unnecessary testing, optimize timing of mortality rates than those randomly assigned to PCI or intervention, and best handle other problems such as CABG in controlled trials. operations for complex multivalve disease, multiple reop- Supporting References: (35,79–84) erations, and complex IE. Heart Valve Centers of JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e71 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Excellence can play an important role in patient and 3.2. Aortic Stenosis clinician education to help ensure timely referral for 3.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up evaluation and proper protocol for follow-up. Supporting References: (35,85–88) The overall approach to the initial diagnosis of VHD is discussed in Section 2.3, and additional considerations fi 3. Aortic Stenosis speci c to patients with AS are addressed here. 3.2.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS
See Table 8 for the stages of valvular AS and Tables 9 and 10 CLASS I for a summary of recommendations for choice and timing 1. TTE is indicated in patients with signs or symptoms of AS or a of intervention. bicuspid aortic valve for accurate diagnosis of the cause of AS, hemodynamic severity, LV size, and systolic function, and for determining prognosis and timing of valve intervention 3.1. Stages of Valvular AS (24,25,89). (Level of Evidence: B) Medical and interventional approaches to the management of patients with valvular AS depend on accurate diagnosis Most patients with AS are first diagnosed when cardiac of the cause and stage of the disease process. Table 8 shows auscultation reveals a systolic murmur or after a review of the stages of AS ranging from patients at risk of AS (stage TTE requested for other indications. Physical examination A) or with progressive hemodynamic obstruction (stage B) findings are specific but not sensitive for evaluation of to severe asymptomatic (stage C) and symptomatic AS stenosis severity. The classic findings of a loud (grade (stage D). Each of these stages is defined by valve anatomy, 3/6), late-peaking systolic murmur that radiates to the valve hemodynamics, the consequences of valve obstruction carotid arteries, a single or paradoxically split second heart on the left ventricle and vasculature, as well as by patient sound, and a delayed and diminished carotid upstroke symptoms. Hemodynamic severity is best characterized by confirm the presence of severe AS. However, carotid up- the transaortic maximum velocity (or mean pressure stroke may be normal in elderly patients because of the gradient) when the transaortic volume flow rate is normal. effects of aging on the vasculature, and the murmur may be However, some patients with AS have a low transaortic soft or may radiate to the apex. The only physical exami- volume flow rate due to either LV systolic dysfunction with nation finding that is reliable in excluding the possibility of a low LV ejection fraction (LVEF) or due to a small hy- severe AS is a normally split second heart sound. pertrophied left ventricle with a low stroke volume. These TTE is indicated when there is an unexplained systolic categories of severe AS pose a diagnostic and management murmur, a single second heart sound, a history of a challenge distinctly different from the challenges faced by bicuspid aortic valve, or symptoms that might be due to the majority of patients with AS, who have a high gradient AS. Echocardiographic imaging allows reliable identifica- and velocity when AS is severe. These special subgroups tion of the number of valve leaflets along with qualitative with low-flow AS are designated D2 (with a low LVEF) assessment of valve motion and leaflet calcification. In and D3 (with a normal LVEF). nearly all patients, the hemodynamic severity of the ste- The definition of severe AS is based on natural history notic lesion can be defined with Doppler echocardio- studies of patients with unoperated AS, which show that graphic measurements of maximum transvalvular velocity, the prognosis is poor once there is a peak aortic valve ve- mean pressure gradient, and continuity equation valve area, locity of >4 m per second, corresponding to a mean aortic as discussed in the European Association of Echocardi- valve gradient >40 mm Hg. In patients with low forward ography (EAE)/ASE guidelines for evaluation of valve flow, severe AS can be present with lower aortic valve stenosis. Doppler evaluation of severity of AS has been well velocities and lower aortic valve gradients. Thus, an aortic validated in experimental and human studies compared valve area should be calculated in these patients. The with direct measurements of intracardiac pressure and prognosis of patients with AS is poorer when the aortic cardiac output. In addition, Doppler measures of severity valve area is <1.0 cm2. At normal flow rates, an aortic valve of AS are potent predictors of clinical outcome. However, area of <0.8 cm2 correlates with a mean aortic valve gradient Doppler may underestimate or overestimate aortic velocity >40 mm Hg. However, symptomatic patients who have a and disease severity in some patients, so clinical evaluation calcified aortic valve with reduced opening and an aortic should include symptoms, physical examination findings, valve area between 0.8 cm2 and 1.0 cm2 should be closely and results of other diagnostic testing as well. evaluated to determine whether they would benefit from TTE is also useful for determining the LV response to valve intervention. Meticulous attention to detail is required pressure overload. Systolic function is evaluated using 2D when assessing aortic valve hemodynamics, either with or 3–dimensional (3D) measurement of LVEF. LV dia- Doppler echocardiography or cardiac catheterization, and the stolic function can be evaluated using standard Doppler inherent variability of the measurements and calculations approaches and an estimate of pulmonary systolic pressure should always be considered in clinical-decision making. derived from the TR jet. In addition, TTE allows e72 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 8. Stages of Valvular AS
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms
A At risk of AS Bicuspid aortic valve Aortic Vmax <2 m/s None None (or other congenital valve anomaly) Aortic valve sclerosis
B Progressive AS Mild-to-moderate leaflet Mild AS: Aortic Vmax Early LV diastolic None calcification of a bicuspid 2.0–2.9 m/s or mean dysfunction may or trileaflet valve with DP <20 mm Hg be present some reduction in systolic Moderate AS: Aortic Normal LVEF
motion or Vmax 3.0–3.9 m/s Rheumatic valve changes or mean DP20–39 with commissural fusion mm Hg C: Asymptomatic severe AS
C1 Asymptomatic Severe leaflet calcification Aortic Vmax 4 m/s LV diastolic dysfunction None: Exercise severe AS or congenital stenosis with or mean DP 40 mm Hg Mild LV hypertrophy testing is reasonable severely reduced leaflet AVA typically is 1.0 cm2 Normal LVEF to confirm symptom opening (or AVAi 0.6 cm2/m2) status Very severe AS is an aortic
Vmax 5 m/s or mean DP 60 mm Hg
C2 Asymptomatic Severe leaflet calcification Aortic Vmax 4 m/s or LVEF <50% None severe AS with or congenital stenosis with mean DP 40 mm Hg LV dysfunction severely reduced leaflet AVA typically 1.0 cm2 opening (or AVAi 0.6 cm2/m2) D: Symptomatic severe AS
D1 Symptomatic Severe leaflet calcification Aortic Vmax 4 m/s or LV diastolic dysfunction Exertional dyspnea severe high- or congenital stenosis with mean DP 40 mm Hg LV hypertrophy or decreased exercise gradient AS severely reduced leaflet AVA typically 1.0 cm2 Pulmonary hypertension tolerance opening (or AVAi 0.6 cm2/m2) may be present Exertional angina but may be larger with Exertional syncope or mixed AS/AR presyncope D2 Symptomatic severe Severe leaflet calcification AVA 1.0 cm2 with LV diastolic dysfunction HF fl low- ow/low-gradient with severely reduced leaflet resting aortic Vmax LV hypertrophy Angina AS with reduced LVEF motion <4 m/s or mean DP LVEF <50% Syncope or presyncope <40 mm Hg Dobutamine stress echocardiography shows 2 AVA 1.0 cm with Vmax 4 m/s at any flow rate D3 Symptomatic severe Severe leaflet calcification AVA 1.0 cm2 with aortic Increased LV relative HF
low-gradient AS with severely reduced leaflet Vmax <4 m/s or mean DP wall thickness Angina with normal LVEF or motion <40 mm Hg Small LV chamber Syncope or presyncope paradoxical low-flow Indexed AVA 0.6 cm2/m2 and with low stroke volume severe AS Stroke volume index <35 mL/m2 Restrictive diastolic filling Measured when patient is LVEF 50% normotensive (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) AR indicates aortic regurgitation; AS, aortic stenosis; AVA, aortic valve area; AVAi, aortic valve area indexed to body surface area; BP, blood pressure; HF, heart failure; LV, left ventricular;
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; DP, pressure gradient; and Vmax, maximum aortic velocity. diagnosis and evaluation of concurrent valve lesions, with Patients with severe AS and concurrent LV systolic MR being common in patients with AS. dysfunction often present with a relatively low transvalvular Supporting References: (8,19,24,25,27,89–94) velocity and pressure gradient (i.e., mean pressure < CLASS IIa gradient 40 mm Hg) but with a small calculated valve 1. Low-dose dobutamine stress testing using echocardiographic or area. In some of these patients, severe AS is present with invasive hemodynamic measurements is reasonable in patients LV systolic dysfunction due to afterload mismatch. In with stage D2 AS with all of the following (95–97) (Level of others, primary myocardial dysfunction is present with only Evidence: B): moderate AS and reduced aortic leaflet opening due to a a. Calcified aortic valve with reduced systolic opening; low transaortic volume flow rate. In these patients with b. LVEF less than 50%; low-flow/low-gradient AS and LV systolic dysfunction 2 c. Calculated valve area 1.0 cm or less; and (LVEF <50%), it may be useful to measure aortic velocity d. Aortic velocity less than 4.0 m per second or mean pressure (or mean pressure gradient) and valve area during a gradient less than 40 mm Hg. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e73 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline baseline state and again during low-dose pharmacological patient-specific factors. TTE for re-evaluation of asymp- (i.e., dobutamine infusion) stress testing to determine tomatic patients with AS with normal LV systolic function whether AS is severe or only moderate and to evaluate for who have no change in signs or symptoms is performed at contractile or flow reserve. intervals of 6 months to 1 year when aortic velocity is 4.0 Dobutamine is infused in progressive stages, beginning at m per second (stage C), 1 to 2 years when aortic velocity is 5 mcg/kg per minute and increasing in increments of 5 mcg/ between 3.0 m per second and 3.9 m per second (stage B), kg per minute to a maximum dose of 20 mcg/kg per minute and 3 to 5 years when aortic velocity is 2.0 m per second to with appropriate clinical and hemodynamic monitoring. 2.9 m/s (stage B) (Table 4). Echocardiographic and Doppler data (or hemodynamic Valvular AS is a progressive disease, and an increase in data) are recorded at each dose of dobutamine for mea- hemodynamic severity is inevitable once even mild AS is surement of aortic velocity, mean pressure gradient, valve present. The rate of progression of the stenotic lesion has area, and LVEF. Patients who do not have true anatomically been estimated in a variety of invasive and noninvasive severe AS will exhibit an increase in valve area with only a studies. When severe AS is present (aortic velocity 4.0 m modest increase in transaortic velocity or gradient as trans- per second), the rate of progression to symptoms is high, aortic stroke volume increases. In contrast, patients with with an event-free survival of only 30% to 50% at 2 years. severe AS have a relatively fixed valve area even with an in- Therefore, patients with asymptomatic severe AS require crease in LV contractility and transaortic volume flow rate. frequent monitoring for progressive disease because The document “Echocardiographic Assessment of Valve symptom onset may be insidious and not recognized by the Stenosis: EAE/ASE Recommendations for Clinical Prac- patient. tice” defines severe AS on low-dose dobutamine stress Once even moderate AS is present (aortic velocity be- testing as a maximum velocity 4.0 m per second with a tween 3.0 m per second and 3.9 m per second), the average valve area 1.0 cm2 at any point during the test protocol. In rate of progression is an increase in velocity of 0.3 m per addition to moderate AS and true severe AS, low-dose second per year, an increase in mean pressure gradient of 7 dobutamine stress testing helps identify a third group of mm Hg per year, and a decrease in valve area of 0.1 cm2 patients who fail to show an increase in stroke volume 20% per year. There is marked individual variability in the rate with dobutamine, referred to as “lack of contractile reserve” of hemodynamic change. Progression of AS can be more or “lack of flow reserve.” This subgroup of patients appears to rapid in older patients and in those with more severe leaflet have a very poor prognosis with either medical or surgical calcification. Because it is not possible to predict the exact therapy. Low-dose dobutamine stress testing in patients rate of progression in an individual patient, regular clinical with AS requires center experience in pharmacological stress and echocardiographic follow-up is mandatory in all pa- testing as well as continuous hemodynamic and electrocar- tients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS. diographic monitoring with a cardiologist in attendance. In patients with aortic sclerosis, defined as focal areas of Supporting References: (8,43,95,96,98–101) valve calcification and leaflet thickening with an aortic See Online Data Supplement 1 for more information on velocity <2.5 m per second, progression to severe AS oc- outcomes in patients with low-flow/low-gradient AS with curs in about 10% of patients within 5 years. Patients with reduced LVEF. bicuspid aortic valve disease are also at risk for progressive valve stenosis, with AS being the most common reason for 3.2.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS intervention in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve In patients with known valvular AS, repeat TTE is (Section 5.1.1). appropriate when physical examination reveals a louder Supporting References: (28,104–115) systolic murmur or a change in the second heart sound or See Online Data Supplement 2 for more information on when symptoms occur that might be due to AS because hemodynamic progression of AS. valve obstruction may have progressed since the last eval- uation. Repeat TTE is also appropriate in patients with AS 3.2.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC CATHETERIZATION who are exposed to increased hemodynamic demands Diagnostic TTE and Doppler data can be obtained in either electively, such as noncardiac surgery or pregnancy, nearly all patients, but severity of AS may be under- or acutely, such as with a systemic infection, anemia, or estimated if image quality is poor or if a parallel intercept gastrointestinal bleeding. In these clinical settings, angle is not obtained between the ultrasound beam and knowledge of the severity of valve obstruction and LV aortic jet. CMR imaging shows promise for evaluation of function is critical for optimizing loading conditions and severity of AS but is not widely available. Cardiac CT fi maintaining a normal cardiac output. imaging is useful for quantitation of valve calci cation fi Supporting References: (24,25,89,102,103) (severe calci cation is considered to be present with an aortic valve calcification score >1,000 Agatston units) and 3.2.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP in patients undergoing TAVR for measurement of annulus Timing of periodic clinical evaluation of patients with area, leaflet length, and the annular to coronary ostial severe asymptomatic AS depends on comorbidities and distance. However, CT imaging is less useful for evaluation e74 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 of severity of AS. When noninvasive data are non- was normal in 73% of patients; however, adverse cardiac diagnostic or if there is a discrepancy between clinical and events occurred in 67 of these patients at a mean follow-up echocardiographic evaluation, cardiac catheterization for interval of 20 14 months. Predictors of cardiac events, determination of severity of AS is recommended. Trans- primarily symptom onset requiring AVR, were age >65 aortic pressure gradients should be recorded for measure- years, diabetes mellitus, LV hypertrophy, a resting mean ment of mean transaortic gradient, based on simultaneous pressure gradient >35 mm Hg, and an increase of >20 LV and aortic pressure measurements. Aortic valve area mm Hg in mean pressure gradient with exercise. However, should be calculated with the Gorlin formula, using a Fick a prospective study of 123 patients with asymptomatic AS or thermodilution cardiac output measurement. See did not show additive value for exercise hemodynamics Section 14.1 for recommendations on coronary angiog- for predicting clinical outcome when baseline measures raphy in patients with AS. of hemodynamic severity and functional status were con- Supporting References: (42,116) sidered. Recording hemodynamics with exercise is chal- lenging, and simpler parameters are adequate in most 3.2.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: RECOMMENDATIONS patients. CLASS IIa Supporting References: (25,28,46,47,117–121) 1. Exercise testing is reasonable to assess physiological changes See Online Data Supplement 3 for more information on fi with exercise and to con rm the absence of symptoms in exercise testing in patients with AS. asymptomatic patients with a calcified aortic valve and an aortic velocity 4.0 m per second or greater or mean pressure CLASS III: Harm gradient 40 mm Hg or higher (stage C) (25,46,47,117). (Level 1. Exercise testing should not be performed in symptomatic pa- of Evidence: B) tients with AS when the aortic velocity is 4.0 m per second or greater or mean pressure gradient is 40 mm Hg or higher When performed under the direct supervision of an (stage D) (122). (Level of Evidence: B) experienced clinician, with close monitoring of BP and ECG, exercise testing in asymptomatic patients is relatively As reported in several prospective and retrospective safe and may provide information that is not evident studies, the risk of exercise testing is low in asymptomatic during the initial clinical evaluation, particularly when the patients with AS. However, even in asymptomatic patients, patient’s functional capacity is unclear. Patients with complications include exertional hypotension in up to 10% symptoms provoked by exercise testing should be consid- of patients, exercise-induced symptoms, and ventricular ered symptomatic, even if the clinical history is equivocal. premature beats. A retrospective study of 347 patients with Although it can be challenging to separate normal exercise AS who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing limitations from abnormal symptoms due to AS, particu- showed no deaths or major complications. Most of these larly in elderly sedentary patients, exercise-induced angina, patients had no (78%) or equivocal (16%) symptoms at excessive dyspnea early in exercise, dizziness, or syncope baseline, with only 20 symptomatic patients (6%) with are consistent with symptoms of AS. In 1 series, exercise AS in this series (123). testing brought out symptoms in 29% of patients who were Exercise testing should not be performed in symptom- considered asymptomatic before testing; in these patients, atic patients with AS owing to a high risk of complications, spontaneous symptoms developed over the next year in including syncope, ventricular tachycardia, and death. In 51% of patients, compared with only 11% of patients who a prospective survey of 20 medical centers in Sweden that – had no symptoms on exercise testing. included 50,000 exercise tests done over an 18 month Exercise testing can also identify a limited exercise ca- period, the complication rate was 18.4; morbidity rate, 5.2; pacity, abnormal BP response, or arrhythmia. An abnormal and mortality rate, 0.4 per 10,000 tests. Although the hemodynamic response (e.g., hypotension or failure to number of patients with AS was not reported, 12 of the 92 increase BP with exercise) in patients with severe AS is complications occurred in patients with AS: 8 had an ex- considered a poor prognostic finding. In another series, ercise decline in BP, 1 had asystole, and 3 had ventricular patients with AS who manifested symptoms, an abnormal tachycardia. – BP response (<20 mm Hg increase), or ST-segment ab- Supporting References: (46,47,117 120,122,123) normalities with exercise had a significantly reduced symptom-free survival at 2 years (19% compared with 85%). 3.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations However, electrocardiographic ST-segment depression is CLASS I seen in >80% of patients with AS with exercise and is 1. Hypertension in patients at risk for developing AS (stage A) and nonspecific for diagnosis of CAD. Ventricular tachycardia in patients with asymptomatic AS (stages B and C) should be was reported in early exercise studies but has not been treated according to standard GDMT, started at a low dose, and gradually titrated upward as needed with frequent clinical reported in contemporary series. monitoring (124–126). (Level of Evidence: B) Some studies suggest additional value for measuring changes in valve hemodynamics with exercise. In a series of Hypertension is common in patients with AS, may be a 186 patients with moderate-to-severe AS, stress testing risk factor for AS, and adds to the total pressure overload JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e75 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline on the left ventricle in combination with valve obstruction. progression of AS. However, concurrent CAD is common Concern that antihypertensive medications might result in in patients with AS, and all patients should be screened a fall in cardiac output has not been corroborated in studies and treated for hypercholesterolemia using GDMT for of medical therapy, including 2 small RCTs, likely because primary and secondary prevention of CAD. AS does not result in “fixed” valve obstruction until late in Supporting References: (109,130–133) the disease process. In 1,616 patients with asymptomatic See Online Data Supplement 4 for more information on AS in the SEAS (Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Ste- clinical trials of lipid-lowering therapy to slow progression of nosis) study, hypertension (n¼1,340) was associated with a AS (stage B) and prevent cardiovascular outcomes. 56% higher rate of ischemic cardiovascular events and a 3.2.3. Timing of Intervention: Recommendations 2-fold increased mortality rate (both p<0.01) compared with normotensive patients with AS, although no impact See Table 9 for a summary of recommendations from this on AVR was seen. Medical therapy for hypertension section and Figure 1 for indications for AVR in patients should follow standard guidelines, starting at a low dose with AS. These recommendations for timing of interven- and gradually titrating upward as needed to achieve BP tion for AS apply to both surgical and transcatheter AVR. control. There are no studies addressing specific antihy- The integrative approach to assessing risk of surgical or pertensive medications in patients with AS, but diuretics transcatheter AVR is discussed in Section 2.5. The specific should be avoided if the LV chamber is small, because even type of intervention for AS is discussed in Section 3.2.4. smaller LV volumes may result in a fall in cardiac output. CLASS I In theory, ACE inhibitors may be advantageous due to the 1. AVR is recommended in symptomatic patients with severe AS potential beneficial effects on LV fibrosis in addition to (stage D1) with (9,91,134,135) (Level of Evidence: B): control of hypertension. Beta blockers are an appropriate a. Decreased systolic opening of a calcified or congenitally choice in patients with concurrent CAD. stenotic aortic valve; and Supporting References: (124–128) b. An aortic velocity 4.0 m per second or greater or mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg or higher; and CLASS IIb c. Symptoms of HF, syncope, exertional dyspnea, angina, or 1. Vasodilator therapy may be reasonable if used with invasive presyncope by history or on exercise testing. hemodynamic monitoring in the acute management of patients with severe decompensated AS (stage D) with NYHA class IV Hemodynamic progression eventually leading to symp- HF symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C) tom onset occurs in nearly all asymptomatic patients with AS. However, survival during the asymptomatic phase is In patients who present with severe AS and NYHA similar to age-matched controls with a low risk of sudden class IV HF, afterload reduction may be used in an effort to death (<1% per year) when patients are followed pro- stabilize the patient before urgent AVR. Invasive moni- spectively and promptly report symptom onset. The rate of toring of LV filling pressures, cardiac output, and systemic symptom onset is strongly dependent on severity of AS, vascular resistance is essential because of the tenuous he- with an event-free survival rate of about 75% to 80% at 2 modynamic status of these patients, in whom a sudden years in those with a jet velocity <3.0 m per second decline in systemic vascular resistance might result in an compared with only 30% to 50% in those with a jet acute decline in cardiac output across the obstructed aortic velocity 4.0 m per second. Patients with asymptomatic valve. However, some patients do benefit with an increase AS require periodic monitoring for development of in cardiac output as systemic vascular resistance is slowly symptoms and progressive disease, but routine AVR is not adjusted downward due to the reduction in total LV recommended (Section 3.1). afterload. AVR should be performed as soon as feasible in However, once even mild symptoms caused by severe these patients. AS are present, outcomes are extremely poor unless Supporting Reference: (129) outflow obstruction is relieved. Typical initial symptoms CLASS III: No Benefit are dyspnea on exertion or decreased exercise tolerance. 1. Statin therapy is not indicated for prevention of hemodynamic The classical symptoms of syncope, angina, and HF are fi progression of AS in patients with mild-to-moderate calci c late manifestations of disease, most often seen in patients valve disease (stages B to D) (109,130,131). (Level of Evidence: A) in whom early symptom onset was not recognized and intervention was inappropriately delayed. In patients with Despite experimental models and retrospective clinical severe, symptomatic, and calcific AS, the only effective studies that suggest that lipid-lowering therapy with a treatment is surgical or transcatheter AVR, resulting in statin might prevent disease progression of calcific AS, 3 improved survival rates, reduced symptoms, and improved large well-designed RCTs failed to show a benefit either in exercise capacity. In the absence of serious comorbid terms of changes in hemodynamic severity or in clinical conditions that limit life expectancy or quality of life, AVR outcomes in patients with mild-to-moderate valve is indicated in virtually all symptomatic patients with severe obstruction. Thus, at the time of publication, there are no AS and should be performed promptly after onset of data to support the use of statins for prevention of symptoms. Age alone is not a contraindication to surgery, e76 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 9. Summary of Recommendations for AS: Timing of Intervention
Recommendations COR LOE References AVR is recommended for symptomatic patients with severe high-gradient AS who have symptoms IB(9,91,134,135) by history or on exercise testing (stage D1) AVR is recommended for asymptomatic patients with severe AS (stage C2) and LVEF <50% I B (136,137) AVR is indicated for patients with severe AS (stage C or D) when undergoing other cardiac surgery I B (108,138) AVR is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with very severe AS (stage C1, aortic velocity IIa B (139,140) 5.0 m/s) and low surgical risk AVR is reasonable in asymptomatic patients (stage C1) with severe AS and decreased exercise IIa B (25,47) tolerance or an exercise fall in BP AVR is reasonable in symptomatic patients with low-flow/low-gradient severe AS with reduced LVEF IIa B (43,141,142) (stage D2) with a low-dose dobutamine stress study that shows an aortic velocity 4.0 m/s (or mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg) with a valve area 1.0 cm2 at any dobutamine dose AVR is reasonable in symptomatic patients who have low-flow/low-gradient severe AS (stage D3) IIa C N/A who are normotensive and have an LVEF 50% if clinical, hemodynamic, and anatomic data support valve obstruction as the most likely cause of symptoms AVR is reasonable for patients with moderate AS (stage B) (aortic velocity 3.0–3.9 m/s) who are IIa C N/A undergoing other cardiac surgery AVR may be considered for asymptomatic patients with severe AS (stage C1) and rapid disease IIb C N/A progression and low surgical risk
AS indicates aortic stenosis; AVR, aortic valve replacement by either surgical or transcatheter approach; BP, blood pressure; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; and N/A, not applicable. with several series showing outcomes similar to age- ejection fraction or stroke volume as defined for stages D2 matched normal subjects in the very elderly. and D3. Severe AS is defined as an aortic velocity 4.0 m per Supporting References: (24,25,29,89,92,94,108,109,134,135, second or mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg based on 139,140,143–148) outcomes in a series of patients with AS of known he- See Online Data Supplements 5, 6, and 7 for more infor- modynamic severity. Although transaortic velocity and mation on clinical outcomes with asymptomatic AS (stages B mean pressure gradient are redundant measures of AS and C) of known hemodynamic severity, incidence of sudden severitydwith native valve AS there is a close linear cor- death in asymptomatic patients with AS (stages B and C), and relation between velocity and mean pressure gradient clinical outcomes with symptomatic AS of known hemodynamic whether measured by catheterization or Doppler methodsd severity, respectively. both are included in this guideline so that either Doppler CLASS I or invasive measurements can be used in decision making. 2. AVR is recommended for asymptomatic patients with severe AS There is substantial overlap in hemodynamic severity be- (stage C2) and an LVEF less than 50% with decreased systolic tween asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, and there opening of a calcified aortic valve with an aortic velocity 4.0 m is no single parameter that indicates the need for AVR. per second or greater or mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg or Instead, it is the combination of symptoms, valve anatomy, higher (136,137). (Level of Evidence: B) and hemodynamics (Table 8) that provides convincing In patients with a low LVEF and severe AS, survival is fi evidence that AVR will be bene cial in an individual pa- better in those who undergo AVR than in those treated tient. Many patients with a high transaortic velocity/ medically. The depressed LVEF in many patients is caused pressure gradient will remain asymptomatic for several by excessive afterload (afterload mismatch), and LV years and do not require AVR until symptom onset. function improves after AVR in such patients. If LV However, if symptoms are present, a high velocity/ dysfunction is not caused by afterload mismatch, survival is fi gradient con rms valve obstruction as the cause of symp- still improved, likely because of the reduced afterload with toms. With mixed stenosis and regurgitation, a high ve- AVR, but improvement in LV function and resolution of locity/gradient indicates severe mixed aortic valve disease. symptoms might not be complete after AVR. Calculation of valve area is not necessary when a high Supporting References: (98,136,141,142,149–153) fi velocity/gradient is present and the valve is calci ed and See Online Data Supplement 1 for more information on 2 immobile; most patients will have a valve area 1.0 cm or outcomes in patients with low-flow/low-gradient AS with 2 2 an indexed valve area 0.6 cm /m , but some will have reduced LVEF. a larger valve area due to a large body size or coexisting CLASS I aortic regurgitation (AR). Thus, the primary criterion fi 3. AVR is indicated for patients with severe AS (stage C or D) for the de nition of severity of AS is based on aortic ve- when undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications when locity or mean pressure gradient. Calculations of valve area there is decreased systolic opening of a calcified aortic valve may be supportive but are not necessary when a high ve- and an aortic velocity 4.0 m per second or greater or mean locity or gradient is present. In contrast, valve area cal- pressure gradient 40 mm Hg or higher (108,138). (Level of culations are essential for patients with AS and a low Evidence: B) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e77 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Figure 1. Indications for AVR in Patients With AS
Arrows show the decision pathways that result in a recommendation for AVR. Periodic monitoring is indicated for all patients in whom AVR is not yet indicated, including those with asymptomatic AS (stage D or C) and those with low-gradient AS (stage D2 or D3) who do not meet the criteria for intervention. *AVR should be considered with stage D3 AS only if valve obstruction is the most likely cause of symptoms, stroke volume index is <35 mL/m2, indexed AVA is 0.6 cm2/m2, and data are recorded when the patient is normotensive (systolic BP <140 mm Hg). AS indicates aortic stenosis; AVA; aortic valve area; AVR, aortic valve replacement by either surgical or transcatheter approach; BP, blood pressure; DSE, dobutamine stress
echocardiography; ETT, exercise treadmill test; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; DPmean, mean pressure gradient; and Vmax, maximum velocity.
Prospective clinical studies demonstrate that disease In patients with very severe AS and an aortic progression occurs in nearly all patients with severe velocity 5.0 m per second or mean pressure gradient 60 asymptomatic AS. Symptom onset within 2 to 5 years is mm Hg, the rate of symptom onset is approximately 50% likely when aortic velocity is 4.0 m per second or mean at 2 years. Several observational studies have shown higher pressure gradient is 40 mm Hg. The additive risk of rates of symptom onset and major adverse cardiac events in AVR at the time of other cardiac surgery is less than the patients with very severe, compared with severe, AS. In risk of reoperation within 5 years. addition, a study comparing early surgery with surgery at Supporting References: (108,138,154,155) symptom onset in 57 propensity score matched pairs showed a lower all-cause mortality risk with early surgery CLASS IIa (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.135; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1. AVR is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with very severe ¼ AS (stage C1) with (139,140) (Level of Evidence: B): 0.030 to 0.597; p 0.008). Thus, it is reasonable to a. Decreased systolic opening of a calcified valve; consider elective AVR in patients with very severe b. An aortic velocity 5.0 m per second or greater or mean asymptomatic AS if surgical risk is low rather than waiting pressure gradient 60 mm Hg or higher; and for symptom onset. A low surgical risk is defined as an c. A low surgical risk. STS PROM score of <4.0 in the absence of other e78 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 comorbidities or advanced frailty. At Heart Valve Centers 20 mcg/kg per minute. On the basis of outcome data of Excellence, this corresponds to an operative mortality in several prospective nonrandomized studies, AVR is of <1.5% (Section 2.5). Patient age, avoidance of patient- reasonable in these patients. LVEF typically increases by prosthesis mismatch, anticoagulation issues, and patient 10 LVEF units and may return to normal if afterload preferences should be taken into account in a decision to mismatch was the cause of LV systolic dysfunction. Some proceed with AVR or continue watchful waiting. patients without contractile reserve may also benefit from Supporting References: (115,139,140,145,156–158) AVR, but decisions in these high-risk patients must be
CLASS IIa individualized because there are no data indicating who 2. AVR is reasonable in apparently asymptomatic patients with will have a better outcome with surgery. severe AS (stage C1) with (25,47) (Level of Evidence: B): Supporting References: (43,99,137,141,142,150,151) a. A calcified aortic valve; See Online Data Supplement 1 for more information on b. An aortic velocity of 4.0 m per second to 4.9 m per second or outcomes in patients with low-flow/low-gradient AS with mean pressure gradient of 40 mm Hg to 59 mm Hg; and reduced LVEF. c. An exercise test demonstrating decreased exercise toler- CLASS IIa ance or a fall in systolic BP. 4. AVR is reasonable in symptomatic patients with low-flow/low- Exercise testing may be helpful in clarifying symptom gradient severe AS (stage D3) with an LVEF 50% or greater, a status in patients with severe AS. When symptoms are calcified aortic valve with significantly reduced leaflet motion, 2 provoked by exercise testing, the patient is considered and a valve area 1.0 cm or less only if clinical, hemodynamic, symptomatic and meets a Class I recommendation for and anatomic data support valve obstruction as the most likely cause of symptoms and data recorded when the patient is AVR. In patients without overt symptoms who normotensive (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) indicate (Level of demonstrate 1) a decrease in systolic BP below baseline Evidence: C): or a failure of BP to increase by at least 20 mm Hg or 2) a. An aortic velocity less than 4 m per second or mean pressure fi asigni cant decrease in exercise tolerance compared with gradient less than 40 mm Hg; and age and sex normal standards, symptom onset within 1 b. A stroke volume index less than 35 mL/m2; and to 2 years is high (about 60% to 80%). Thus, it is c. An indexed valve area 0.6 cm2/m2 or less. reasonable to consider elective AVR in these patients when surgical risk is low, taking into account patient Most patients with severe AS present with a high preferences and clinical factors such as age and comorbid transvalvular gradient and velocity. However, a subset conditions. present with severe AS despite a low gradient and veloc- (25,46,47,117,119–121) ity due either to concurrent LV systolic dysfunction Supporting References: < See Online Data Supplement 3 for more information on (LVEF 50%) or a low transaortic stroke volume with exercise testing. preserved LV systolic function. Studies suggest that low- flow/low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF oc- CLASS IIa curs in 5% to 25% of patients with severe AS. Some studies 3. AVR is reasonable in symptomatic patients with low-flow/low- suggest that even asymptomatic patients with low-flow/ gradient severe AS with reduced LVEF (stage D2) with a (43,141,142) (Level of Evidence: B): low-gradient severe AS with a normal LVEF have a fi a. Calcified aortic valve with reduced systolic opening; poor prognosis and might bene t from AVR. Other b. Resting valve area 1.0 cm2 or less; studies suggest that many of these asymptomatic patients c. Aortic velocity less than 4 m per second or mean pressure have only moderate AS with outcomes similar to other gradient less than 40 mm Hg; patients with moderate AS and normal transaortic flow d. LVEF less than 50%; and rates. However, both case-control and prospective studies e. A low-dose dobutamine stress study that shows an aortic suggest that outcomes are worse in symptomatic patients velocity 4 m per second or greater or mean pressure gradient with low-flow/low-gradient AS with a normal LVEF 2 40 mm Hg or higher with a valve area 1.0 cm or less at any compared with patients with high-gradient severe AS. dobutamine dose. Although no RCTs have been done, a post hoc subset Mean pressure gradient is a strong predictor of outcome analysis of an RCT suggests that survival may be improved after AVR, with better outcomes with higher gradients. with TAVR or AVR versus medical management in the Outcomes are poor with severe low-gradient AS but are symptomatic patient with low-flow severe AS. still improved with AVR compared with medical therapy The clinical approach to patients with low-flow AS re- in those with a low LVEF, particularly when contractile lies on integration of multiple sources of data. Low-flow/ reserve is present. The document “Echocardiographic low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF should be Assessment of Valve Stenosis: EAE/ASE Recommenda- considered in patients with a severely calcified aortic valve, tions for Clinical Practice” defines severe AS on dobut- an aortic velocity <4.0 m per second (mean pressure amine stress testing as a maximum velocity >4.0 m per gradient <40 mm Hg), and a valve area 1.0 cm2. second with a valve area 1.0 cm2 at any point during the However, even with low flow, severe AS is unlikely with test protocol, with a maximum dobutamine dose of a velocity <3.0 m per second or mean pressure gradient JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e79 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
<20 mm Hg. Typically, there is a small left ventricle with CLASS IIb thick walls, diastolic dysfunction, and a normal LVEF 1. AVR may be considered for asymptomatic patients with severe ( 50%). The first diagnostic step is to ensure that data AS (stage C1) with an aortic velocity 4.0 m per second or have been recorded and measured correctly. If the patient greater or mean pressure gradient 40 mm Hg or higher if the was hypertensive, repeat evaluation after control of BP patient is at low surgical risk and serial testing shows an in- crease in aortic velocity 0.3 m per second or greater per year. should be considered. Next, the valve area should be (Level of Evidence: C) indexed to body size because an apparent small valve area may be only moderate AS in a small patient; an aortic valve Predictors of rapid disease progression include older age, area index 0.6 cm2/m2 suggests severe AS. Transaortic more severe valve calcification, and a faster rate of hemo- stroke volume should be calculated from the LV outflow dynamic progression on serial studies. In patients with tract diameter and Doppler velocity time integral; a stroke severe AS and predictors of rapid disease progression, volume indexed to body surface area <35 mL/m2 is elective AVR may be considered if the surgical risk is low consistent with low flow. If the degree of valve calcification and after consideration of other clinical factors and patient cannot be adequately assessed on TTE, TEE, CT imag- preferences. ing, or fluoroscopy may be considered. The patient should Supporting References: (115,167,168) be evaluated for other potential causes of symptoms to 3.2.4. Choice of Intervention: Recommendations ensure that symptoms are most likely due to valve obstruction. The risk of surgery and patient comorbidities See Table 10 for a summary of recommendations from this should also be taken into account. section. Supporting References: (8,146,159–166) These recommendations for choice of intervention for See Online Data Supplement 8 for more information on AS apply to both surgical and transcatheter AVR; in- outcomes in patients with low-flow/low-gradient AS with dications for AVR are discussed in Section 3.2.3. The preserved LVEF. integrative approach to assessing risk of surgical or trans- catheter AVR is discussed in Section 2.5. The choice of CLASS IIa 5. AVR is reasonable for patients with moderate AS (stage B) with proceeding with surgical versus transcatheter AVR is based an aortic velocity between 3.0 m per second and 3.9 m per on multiple parameters, including the risk of operation, second or mean pressure gradient between 20 mm Hg and 39 patient frailty, and comorbid conditions. Concomitant mm Hg who are undergoing cardiac surgery for other in- severe CAD may also affect the optimal intervention dications. (Level of Evidence: C) because severe multivessel coronary disease may best be served by AVR and CABG. Calcific AS is a progressive disease, and once moderate AS is present, the likelihood of symptom onset within 5 CLASS I years is significant. When the risk of progressive VHD is 1. Surgical AVR is recommended in patients who meet an indica- balanced against the risk of repeat surgery within 5 years, it tion for AVR (Section 3.2.3) with low or intermediate surgical risk (Section 2.5) (74,148). (Level of Evidence: A) is reasonable to perform AVR at the time of other cardiac surgery when moderate AS is present (Sections 4.3.3. and 10). AVR is indicated for survival benefit, improvement in This decision must be individualized based on the specific symptoms, and improvement in LV systolic function in operative risk in each patient, clinical factors such as age and patients with severe symptomatic AS (Section 3.2.3.). comorbid conditions, valve durability, and patient preferences. Given the magnitude of the difference in outcomes be- Supporting References: (25,92,138,154,155) tween those undergoing AVR and those who refuse AVR
Table 10. Summary of Recommendations for AS: Choice of Surgical or Transcatheter Intervention
Recommendations COR LOE References Surgical AVR is recommended in patients who meet an indication for AVR (Section 3.2.3) IA(74,148) with low or intermediate surgical risk For patients in whom TAVR or high-risk surgical AVR is being considered, members of a Heart I C N/A Valve Team should collaborate to provide optimal patient care TAVR is recommended in patients who meet an indication for AVR for AS who have a prohibitive IB(169,170) surgical risk and a predicted post-TAVR survival >12 mo TAVR is a reasonable alternative to surgical AVR in patients who meet an indication for AVR IIa B (171,172) (Section 3.2.3) and who have high surgical risk (Section 2.5) Percutaneous aortic balloon dilation may be considered as a bridge to surgical or transcatheter IIb C N/A AVR in severely symptomatic patients with severe AS TAVR is not recommended in patients in whom existing comorbidities would preclude the III: B (169) expected benefit from correction of AS No Benefit
AS indicates aortic stenosis; AVR, aortic valve replacement; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; N/A, not applicable; and TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement. e80 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 in historical series, an RCT of AVR versus medical therapy therapy in a prospective RCT of patients with severe would not be appropriate in patients with a low to inter- symptomatic AS who were deemed inoperable. Severe AS mediate surgical risk (Section 2.5). Outcomes after surgical was defined as an aortic valve area <0.8 cm2 plus a mean AVR are excellent in patients who do not have a high pressure gradient 40 mm Hg or a maximum aortic procedural risk. Surgical series demonstrate improved velocity 4.0 m per second. All patients had NYHA class symptoms after AVR, and most patients have an im- II to IV symptoms. Patients were considered to have a provement in exercise tolerance as documented in studies prohibitive surgical risk when predicted 30–day surgical with pre- and post-AVR exercise stress testing. The spe- morbidity and mortality were 50% due to comorbid cific choice of prosthetic valve type is discussed in Section disease or a serious irreversible condition. Patients were 11.1. Surgical AVR should be considered over TAVR in excluded if they had a bicuspid aortic valve, acute myo- patients who are at higher surgical risk but have severe cardial infarction (MI), significant CAD, an LVEF <20%, multivessel coronary disease. an aortic annulus diameter <18 mm or >25 mm, severe Supporting References: (74,93,173–176) AR or MR, a transient ischemic attack within 6 months, or fi CLASS I severe renal insuf ciency. TAVR was performed by either 2. For patients in whom TAVR or high-risk surgical AVR is being the transfemoral or transapical approach using the SA- considered, a Heart Valve Team consisting of an integrated, PIEN heart-valve system (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals with exper- Irvine, CA). Standard therapy included percutaneous tise in VHD, cardiac imaging, interventional cardiology, cardiac aortic balloon dilation in 84%. anesthesia, and cardiac surgery should collaborate to provide All-cause death at 2 years was lower with TAVR optimal patient care. (Level of Evidence: C) (43.3%) compared with standard medical therapy (68%), Decision making is complex in the patient at high sur- with an HR for TAVR of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.92; ¼ gical risk with severe symptomatic AS. The decision to p 0.02). There was a reduction in repeat hospitalization < perform surgical AVR, TAVR, or to forgo intervention with TAVR (55% versus 72.5%; p 0.001). In addition, requires input from a Heart Valve Team. The primary only 25.2% of survivors were in NYHA class III or IV 1 cardiologist is aware of coexisting conditions that affect risk year after TAVR, compared with 58% of patients receiving < and long-term survival, the patient’s disease course, and the standard therapy (p 0.001). However, the rate of major patient’s preferences and values. Cardiac imaging special- stroke at 30 days was higher with TAVR (5.05% versus ¼ ists who are knowledgeable about AS and TAVR provide 1.0%; p 0.06) and remained higher at 2 years with TAVR evaluation of aortic valve anatomy and hemodynamic compared with standard therapy (13.8% versus 5.5%; ¼ severity, vascular anatomy, aortic annulus size, and coro- p 0.01). Major vascular complications occurred in 16.2% < nary anatomy, including the annular-ostial distance. with TAVR versus 1.1% with standard therapy (p 0.001). Interventional cardiologists help determine the likelihood Thus, in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic of a successful transcatheter procedure. The cardiac sur- AS who are unable to undergo surgical AVR due to a geon can provide a realistic estimate of risk with a con- prohibitive surgical risk and who have an expected survival > ventional surgical approach, at times in conjunction with a of 1 year after intervention, TAVR is recommended to cardiac anesthesiologist. An expert in VHD, typically a improve survival and reduce symptoms. This decision cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with expertise in imaging should be made only after discussion with the patient fi and/or intervention, provides the continuity and integra- about the expected bene ts and possible complications of tion needed for the collaborative decision-making process. TAVR and surgical AVR. Patients with severe AS are Nurses and other members of the team coordinate care and considered to have a prohibitive surgical risk if they have a help with patient education. The cardiac surgeon and predicted risk with surgery of death or major morbidity > interventional cardiologist are the core of the Heart Valve (all cause) of 50% at 1 year; disease affecting 3 major Team for patients being considered for AVR or TAVR. organ systems that is not likely to improve postoperatively; Supporting References: (79,177) or anatomic factors that preclude or increase the risk of cardiac surgery, such as a heavily calcified (e.g., porcelain) CLASS I aorta, prior radiation, or an arterial bypass graft adherent 3. TAVR is recommended in patients who meet an indication for AVR (Section 3.2.3) who have a prohibitive risk for surgical AVR to the chest wall. (Section 2.5) and a predicted post-TAVR survival greater than Supporting References: (169,170,178) (Level of Evidence: B) 12 months (169,170). CLASS IIa TAVR has been studied in numerous observational 1. TAVR is a reasonable alternative to surgical AVR in patients who meet an indication for AVR (Section 3.2.3) and who have studies and multicenter registries that include large high surgical risk for surgical AVR (Section 2.5) (171,172). numbers of high-risk patients with severe symptomatic (Level of Evidence: B) AS. These studies demonstrated the feasibility, excellent hemodynamic results, and favorable outcomes of the pro- TAVR has been studied in numerous observational cedure. In addition, TAVR was compared with standard studies and multicenter registries that include large JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e81 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline numbers of high-risk patients with severe symptomatic restenosis and clinical deterioration, occur within 6 to 12 AS. These studies demonstrated the feasibility, excellent months in most patients. Therefore, in patients with AS, hemodynamic results, and favorable outcomes of the percutaneous aortic balloon dilation is not a substitute for procedure. In addition, TAVR was compared with stan- AVR. dard therapy in a prospective RCT of patients with severe Some clinicians contend that despite the procedural symptomatic AS who were deemed high risk for surgery. morbidity and mortality and limited long-term results, Severe symptomatic calcific AS was defined as aortic valve percutaneous aortic balloon dilation can have a temporary area <0.8 cm2 plus a mean transaortic gradient 40 mm Hg role in the management of some symptomatic patients who or aortic velocity 4.0 m per second with NYHA class II are not initially candidates for surgical AVR or TAVR. For to IV symptoms. Patients were deemed at high surgical example, patients with severe AS and refractory pulmonary risk if risk of death was 15% within 30 days after the edema or cardiogenic shock might benefit from percuta- procedure. An STS score 10% was used for guidance, neous aortic balloon dilation as a “bridge” to AVR; an with an actual mean STS score of 11.8% 3.3%. Exclu- improved hemodynamic state may reduce the risks of sions included bicuspid aortic valve anatomy, acute MI, TAVR or surgery. In some patients, the effects of percu- significant CAD, an LVEF <20%, an aortic annulus taneous aortic balloon dilation on symptoms and LV diameter <18 mm or >25 mm, severe AR or MR, tran- function may be diagnostically helpful as well, but many sient ischemic attack within 6 months, or severe renal clinicians recommend proceeding directly to AVR in these insufficiency. On an intention-to-treat analysis, all-cause cases. The indications for palliative percutaneous aortic death was similar in those randomized to TAVR balloon dilation in patients in whom AVR cannot be (n¼348) compared with surgical AVR (n¼351) at 30 recommended because of serious comorbid conditions are days, 1 year, and 2 years (p¼0.001) for noninferiority of even less well established, with no data to suggest improved TAVR compared with surgical AVR. The composite longevity; however, some patients do report a decrease in endpoint of all-cause death or stroke at 2 years was 35% symptoms. Most asymptomatic patients with severe AS with surgical AVR compared with 33.9% with TAVR who require urgent noncardiac surgery can undergo surgery (p¼0.78). TAVR was performed by the transfemoral at a reasonably low risk with anesthetic monitoring and approach in 244 patients and the transapical approach in attention to fluid balance. Percutaneous aortic balloon 104 patients. Only limited data on long-term durability of dilation is not recommended for these patients. If preop- bioprosthetic valves implanted by the transcatheter erative correction of AS is needed, they should be approach are available. considered for AVR. Given the known long-term outcomes and valve dura- Supporting References: (171,172,181–183) bility with surgical AVR, TAVR currently remains CLASS III: No Benefit restricted to patients with prohibitive or high surgical risk. 1. TAVR is not recommended in patients in whom existing High surgical risk is defined as an STS PROM score of 8% comorbidities would preclude the expected benefit from to 15%, anatomic factors that increase surgical risk, or correction of AS (169). (Level of Evidence: B) significant frailty (Section 14.2). The survival and symptom reduction benefitofTAVR Supporting References: (171,172,179,180) is only seen in appropriately selected patients. Baseline See Online Data Supplement 9 for more information on clinical factors associated with a poor outcome after choice of intervention. TAVR include advanced age, frailty, smoking or chronic CLASS IIb obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, 1. Percutaneous aortic balloon dilation may be considered as a liver disease, prior stroke, anemia, and other systemic bridge to surgical AVR or TAVR in patients with severe symp- conditions. The STS estimated surgical risk score pro- tomatic AS. (Level of Evidence: C) vides a useful measure of the extent of patient comor- Percutaneous aortic balloon dilation has an important bidities and may help identify which patients will benefit role in treating children, adolescents, and young adults with from TAVR. In patients with a prohibitive surgical risk AS, but its role in treating older patients is very limited. The for AVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic mechanism by which balloon dilation modestly reduces the Transcatheter Valve) study, the survival benefitofTAVR severity of stenosis in older patients is by fracture of calcific was seen in those with an STS score <5% (n¼40, HR: deposits within the valve leaflets and, to a minor degree, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.01; p¼0.04) and in those with an stretching of the annulus and separation of the calci- STS score between 5% and 14.9% (n¼227, HR: 0.58; fied or fused commissures. Immediate hemodynamic results 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.8; p¼0.002) but not in those with an include a moderate reduction in the transvalvular pressure STS score 15% (n¼90, HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46 to gradient, but the postdilation valve area rarely exceeds 1.28; p¼0.31).Therelativeprevalenceofoxygen- 1.0 cm2. Despite the modest change in valve area, an early dependent lung disease was similar in all 3 groups. symptomatic improvement usually occurs. However, serious However, the other reasons for inoperability were quite acute complications, including acute severe AR and different, with a porcelain aorta or prior chest radiation e82 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 11. Stages of Chronic AR
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms A At risk of AR Bicuspid aortic valve (or other AR severity: none or trace None None congenital valve anomaly) Aortic valve sclerosis Diseases of the aortic sinuses or ascending aorta History of rheumatic fever or known rheumatic heart disease IE B Progressive AR Mild-to-moderate calcification Mild AR: Normal LV systolic function None of a trileaflet valve bicuspid Jet width <25% of LVOT; Normal LV volume or mild aortic valve (or other congen- Vena contracta <0.3 cm; LV dilation ital valve anomaly) RVol <30 mL/beat; Dilated aortic sinuses RF <30%; Rheumatic valve changes ERO <0.10 cm2; Previous IE Angiography grade 1þ Moderate AR: Jet width 25%–64% of LVOT; Vena contracta 0.3–0.6 cm; RVol 30–59 mL/beat; RF 30%–49%; ERO 0.10–0.29 cm2; Angiography grade 2þ C Asymptomatic Calcific aortic valve disease Severe AR: C1: Normal LVEF ( 50%) and None; exercise severe AR Bicuspid valve (or other Jet width 65% of LVOT; mild-to-moderate LV dilation testing is congenital abnormality) Vena contracta >0.6 cm; (LVESD 50 mm) reasonable to Dilated aortic sinuses or Holodiastolic flow reversal in C2: Abnormal LV systolic confirm symptom ascending aorta the proximal abdominal aorta function with depressed status Rheumatic valve changes RVol 60 mL/beat; LVEF (<50%) or severe LV IE with abnormal leaflet RF 50%; dilatation (LVESD >50 mm or 2 closure or perforation ERO 0.3 cm2; indexed LVESD >25 mm/m ) Angiography grade 3þ to 4þ; In addition, diagnosis of chronic severe AR requires evidence of LV dilation D Symptomatic Calcific valve disease Severe AR: Symptomatic severe AR may Exertional dyspnea or severe AR Bicuspid valve (or other Doppler jet width 65% of occur with normal systolic angina or more severe congenital abnormality) LVOT; function (LVEF 50%), mild- HF symptoms Dilated aortic sinuses or Vena contracta >0.6 cm, to-moderate LV dysfunction ascending aorta Holodiastolic flow reversal in (LVEF 40%–50%), or severe Rheumatic valve changes the proximal abdominal aorta, LV dysfunction (LVEF <40%); Previous IE with abnormal RVol 60 mL/beat; Moderate-to-severe LV leaflet closure or perforation RF 50%; dilation is present. ERO 0.3 cm2; Angiography grade 3þ to 4þ; In addition, diagnosis of chronic severe AR requires evidence of LV dilation AR indicates aortic regurgitation; ERO, effective regurgitant orifice; HF, heart failure; IE, infective endocarditis; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; LVOT, left ventricular outflow tract; RF, regurgitant fraction; and RVol, regurgitant volume.
damage being most common in those with an STS score 4. Aortic Regurgitation of <5%andfrailtybeingmostcommoninthosewithan STS score 15%.Thesedataemphasizetheimportance 4.1. Acute AR of evaluating the likely benefit of TAVR, as well as the risks, in weighing the risk–benefit ratio of intervention in Acute AR may result from abnormalities of the valve, an individual patient. TAVR is not recommended in primarily IE, or abnormalities of the aorta, primarily aortic patients with 1) a life expectancy of <1year,evenwitha dissection. Acute AR may also occur from iatrogenic successful procedure, and 2) those with a chance of complications, such as following percutaneous aortic “survival with benefit” of <25% at 2 years. balloon dilation or TAVR or following blunt chest trauma. Supporting References: (115,169,178,184) The acute volume overload on the left ventricle usually JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e83 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline results in severe pulmonary congestion as well as a low adjustment for survivor bias and by instrumental variable forward cardiac output. Urgent diagnosis and rapid inter- analysis. Compared with medical therapy, early surgery in vention can be lifesaving. the propensity-matched cohort after adjustment for survi- vor bias was associated with an absolute risk reduction 4.1.1. Diagnosis of 5.9% (p<0.001) for in-hospital mortality. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is contraindicated TTE is indispensable in confirming the presence, severity, in patients with acute severe AR. Augmentation of aortic and etiology of AR, estimating the degree of pulmonary diastolic pressure will worsen the severity of the acute hypertension, and determining whether there is rapid regurgitant volume, thereby aggravating LV filling pres- equilibration of aortic and LV diastolic pressure. Short sures and compromising forward output. deceleration time on the mitral flow velocity curve and early Beta blockers are often used in treating aortic dissection. closure of the mitral valve on M-mode echocardiography are However, these agents should be used very cautiously, if indicators of markedly elevated LV end-diastolic pressure. A at all, for other causes of acute AR because they will block short half-time of <300 milliseconds on the AR velocity the compensatory tachycardia and could precipitate a curve indicates rapid equilibration of the aortic and LV marked reduction in BP. diastolic pressures. Assessing reversed flow during diastole in Supporting References: (185–195) the aortic arch in comparison with the forward systolic flow provides a quick semiquantitative estimate of regurgitant 4.2. Stages of Chronic AR fraction. Acute severe AR caused by aortic dissection is a surgical The most common causes of chronic AR in the United emergency that requires particularly prompt identification States and other developed countries are bicuspid aortic and management. However, the presence of new, even valve and calcific valve disease. In addition, AR frequently mild, AR, diagnosed by auscultation of a diastolic murmur arises from primary diseases causing dilation of the or findings on echocardiography, may be a sign of acute ascending aorta or the sinuses of Valsalva. Another cause of aortic dissection. The sensitivity and specificity of TTE for AR is rheumatic heart disease (the leading cause in many diagnosis of aortic dissection are only 60% to 80%, whereas developing countries). In the majority of patients with AR, TEE has a sensitivity of 98% to 100% and a specificity of the disease course is chronic and slowly progressive with 95% to 100%. CT imaging is also very accurate and may increasing LV volume overload and LV adaptation via provide the most rapid approach to diagnosis at many chamber dilation and hypertrophy. Management of pa- centers. CMR imaging is useful with chronic aortic disease tients with AR depends on accurate diagnosis of the cause but is rarely used in unstable patients with suspected and stage of the disease process. Table 11 shows the stages dissection. Angiography should be considered only when of AR ranging from patients at risk of AR (stage A) or the diagnosis cannot be determined by noninvasive imag- with progressive mild-to-moderate AR (stage B) to severe ing and when patients have suspected or known CAD, asymptomatic (stage C) and symptomatic AR (stage D). especially those with previous CABG. Each of these stages is defined by valve anatomy, valve hemodynamics, severity of LV dilation, and LV systolic 4.1.2. Intervention function, as well as by patient symptoms. In patients with acute severe AR resulting from IE or 4.3. Chronic AR aortic dissection, surgery should not be delayed, especially if there is hypotension, pulmonary edema, or evidence of See Figure 2 for indications for AVR for chronic AR. fl low ow (Section 12). Numerous studies have demon- 4.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up strated improved in-hospital and long-term survival in such patients if they are treated with prompt AVR, as long 4.3.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS as there are no complications (such as severe embolic ce- CLASS I rebral damage) or comorbid conditions that make the 1. TTE is indicated in patients with signs or symptoms of AR prospect of recovery remote. In a prospectively enrolled (stages A to D) for accurate diagnosis of the cause of regurgi- multinational cohort of 1,552 patients with definite native tation, regurgitant severity, and LV size and systolic function, valve endocarditis (NVE), evidence of new AR was present and for determining clinical outcome and timing of valve inter- – (Level of Evidence: B) in 37% of patients. HF (HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.65 to 3.28; vention (32,196 205). p<0.001) and pulmonary edema (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.04 The clinical stages that characterize the severity of to 2.18; p¼0.029) were associated with increased in- chronic AR (Table 11) are defined by symptomatic status, hospital mortality. Early surgery was associated with severity of regurgitation, and LV volume and systolic reduced in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38 to function. TTE is an indispensable imaging test for evalu- 0.82; p¼0.003). The effect of early surgery on in-hospital ating patients with chronic AR and guiding appropriate mortality was also assessed by propensity-based matching management decisions. It provides diagnostic information e84 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 about the etiology and mechanism of AR (including valve significant determinants of survival and functional results reparability), severity of regurgitation, morphology of the after surgery. Symptomatic patients (stage D) with normal ascending aorta, and LV response to the increases in pre- LVEF have significantly better long-term postoperative load and afterload. Quantitative measures of regurgitant survival than those with depressed systolic function. volume and effective regurgitant orifice area were strong Supporting References: (17,32,196–220) predictors of clinical outcome in a prospective study of 251 See Online Data Supplement 10 for more information on asymptomatic patients with isolated AR and normal LV the natural history of asymptomatic AR. function (stages B and C). This was confirmed in a sub- sequent study involving 294 patients. Observation of dia- CLASS I stolic flow reversal in the aortic arch or more distally can 2. TTE is indicated in patients with dilated aortic sinuses or help identify patients with severe AR. Numerous studies ascending aorta or with a bicuspid aortic valve (stages A and B) > to evaluate the presence and severity of AR (221). (Level of involving a total of 1,150 patients have consistently Evidence: B) shown that measures of LV systolic function (LVEF or fractional shortening) and LV end-systolic dimension A diastolic regurgitant murmur is not always audible (LVESD) or volume are associated with development in patients with mild or moderate AR. TTE is more of HF symptoms or death in initially asymptomatic pa- sensitive than auscultation in detecting AR in patients tients (stages B and C1). Moreover, in symptomatic pa- at risk for development of AR. In a series of 100 tients undergoing AVR (stage D), preoperative LV systolic patients referred for echocardiographic evaluation of function and end-systolic dimension or volume are a systolic murmur, 28 had AR on echocardiography.
Figure 2. Indications for AVR for Chronic AR
AR indicates aortic regurgitation; AVR, aortic valve replacement (valve repair may be appropriate in selected patients); ERO, effective regurgitant orifice; LV, left ventricular; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; RF, regurgitant fraction; and RVol, regurgitant volume. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e85 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Auscultation had high specificity (96%) for detecting AR evidence of severity of AR, cardiac catheterization is useful but low sensitivity (21%), and diagnostic accuracy was to assess hemodynamics, coronary artery anatomy, and only 75%. severity of AR. Supporting Reference: (221) Supporting References: (222,224–228)
CLASS I 4.3.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING 3. CMR is indicated in patients with moderate or severe AR Exercise stress testing can be used to assess symptomatic (stages B, C, and D) and suboptimal echocardiographic images status and functional capacity in patients with AR. Such for the assessment of LV systolic function, systolic and dia- fi ’ stolic volumes, and measurement of AR severity (222,223). testing is helpful in con rming patients reports that they (Level of Evidence: B) have no symptoms with daily life activities and in assessing objective exercise capacity and symptom status in those CMR imaging provides accurate measures of regurgitant with equivocal symptoms. volume and regurgitant fraction in patients with AR, as well as assessment of aortic morphology, LV volume, and 4.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations LV systolic function. In addition to its value in patients CLASS I with suboptimal echocardiographic data, CMR is useful 1. Treatment of hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg) is rec- for evaluating patients in whom there is discordance be- ommended in patients with chronic AR (stages B and C), pref- tween clinical assessment and severity of AR by echocar- erably with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or ACE (Level of Evidence: B) diography. CMR measurement of regurgitant severity is inhibitors/ARBs (204,209). less variable than echocardiographic measurement. Vasodilating drugs are effective in reducing systolic BP in Supporting References: (222–228) patients with chronic AR. Beta blockers may be less effective
4.3.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS because the reduction in heart rate is associated with an even higher stroke volume, which contributes to the elevated Symptoms are the most common indication for AVR in systolic pressure in patients with chronic severe AR. patients with AR. In patients with previous documentation (204,209,231–233) of mild or moderate AR, new-onset dyspnea or angina may Supporting References: indicate that AR has progressed in severity. If AR remains CLASS IIa mild, further investigation for other etiologies is indicated. 1. Medical therapy with ACE inhibitors/ARBs and beta blockers In patients with previous documentation of severe AR, is reasonable in patients with severe AR who have symptoms onset of symptoms is an indication for surgery and repeat and/or LV dysfunction (stages C2 and D) when surgery is not performed because of comorbidities (232,234). (Level of TTE is indicated to determine the status of the aortic Evidence: B) valve, aorta, and left ventricle preoperatively. Supporting References: (31,214,220,229,230) Vasodilating drugs improve hemodynamic abnormalities in patients with AR and improve forward cardiac output. 4.3.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP However, 2 small RCTs yielding discordant results did not Patients with asymptomatic severe AR with normal LV conclusively show that these drugs alter the natural history systolic function are at risk for progressive increases in LV of asymptomatic patients with chronic severe AR and end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and reduction in normal LV systolic function. Thus, vasodilator therapy is systolic function. In a series of asymptomatic patients with not recommended routinely in patients with chronic AR and normal LV systolic function who underwent serial asymptomatic AR and normal LV systolic function. echocardiograms, predictors of death or symptoms in a In symptomatic patients who are candidates for surgery, multivariate analysis were age, initial end-systolic dimen- medical therapy is not a substitute for AVR. However, sion, and rate of change in end-systolic dimension and rest medical therapy is helpful for alleviating symptoms in pa- LVEF during serial studies. In asymptomatic patients who tients who are considered at very high risk for surgery do not fulfill the criteria for AVR, serial imaging is indi- because of concomitant comorbid medical conditions. In cated to identify those who are progressing toward the a cohort study of 2,266 patients with chronic AR, treat- threshold for surgery (Table 4). ment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs was associated with a Supporting Reference: (32) reduced composite endpoint of AVR, hospitalization for 4.3.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC CATHETERIZATION HF, and death from HF (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.87; When there is discordance between clinical assessment and p<0.01). In that study, 45% had evidence of LV systolic noninvasive tests about the severity of AR, additional impairment. In another retrospective cohort study of 756 testing is indicated. Under most circumstances, another patients with chronic AR, therapy with beta-adrenergic noninvasive test such as CMR is used when TTE and blockers was associated with improved survival (HR: clinical findings are discordant. Invasive assessment is 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.93; p<0.01). Also, 33% of patients indicated when CMR is not available or there are con- had associated CAD, 64% had hypertension, 20% had traindications for CMR, such as implanted devices. In renal insufficiency, 70% had HF, and 25% had AF. Pa- symptomatic patients with equivocal echocardiographic tients treated with beta blockers were more likely to also e86 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 be taking ACE inhibitors (53% versus 40%; p<0.001) and had a mortality rate of 24.6% per year; even NYHA class II dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (22% versus symptoms were associated with increased mortality (6.3% 16%; p¼0.03). Importantly, more patients receiving beta per year). Numerous other studies indicate that survival blockers in that study underwent AVR (49% versus 29%; and functional status after AVR are related to severity of p<0.001), but this was accounted for in the multivariate preoperative symptoms assessed either subjectively or model. When patients were censored at the time of sur- objectively with exercise testing, with worse outcomes in gery, beta-blocker therapy remained associated with higher patients who undergo surgery after development of survival rates (p<0.05). moderately severe (NYHA class III) symptoms or Supporting References: (204,209,231,232,234–239) impaired exercise capacity. In a series of 289 patients See Online Data Supplement 11 for more information on followed after AVR, long-term postoperative survival was vasodilator therapy in AR. significantly higher in patients who were in NYHA class 4.3.3. Timing of Intervention: Recommendations I or II at the time of surgery compared with those in NYHA class III or IV (10–year survival rates 78% 7% See Table 12 for a summary of recommendations from this versus 45% 4%, respectively; p<0.001). The importance section. of preoperative symptoms in the study was observed for The vast majority of patients who require surgery for both patients with normal LV systolic function and those chronic severe AR will require AVR. Valve-sparing with LV systolic dysfunction. Postoperative survival is replacement of the aortic sinuses and ascending aorta is a significantly higher in symptomatic patients with normal possible strategy in patients with AR caused by aortic LVEF compared with those with impaired systolic fl dilation in whom a trilea et or bicuspid valve is not function, but even in symptomatic patients with severely fi thickened, deformed, or calci ed. Despite advances in depressed systolic function, surgery is recommended over primary aortic valve repair, especially in young patients medical therapy. In a postoperative series of 450 patients with bicuspid aortic valves, the experience at a few undergoing AVR from 1980 to 1995, patients with specialized centers has not yet been replicated at the gen- markedly low LVEF incurred high short- and long-term eral community level, and durability of aortic valve repair mortality after AVR. However, postoperative LV func- remains a major concern. Performance of aortic valve repair tion improved significantly, and most patients survived should be concentrated in those centers with proven without recurrence of HF. This was confirmed in a series expertise in the procedure. of 724 patients who underwent AVR from 1972 to – Supporting References: (244 247) 1999,inwhichlong-termsurvivalwassignificantly CLASS I reduced in the 88 patients with severe LV dysfunction 1. AVR is indicated for symptomatic patients with severe AR (LVEF <30%) compared with the 636 patients with regardless of LV systolic function (stage D) (31,229,230). either less severe LV dysfunction or normal LVEF (81% (Level of Evidence: B) versus 92% at 1 year, 68% versus 81% at 5 years, 46% Symptoms are an important indication for AVR in pa- versus 62% at 10 years, 26% versus 41% at 15 years, and tients with chronic severe AR, and the most important 12% versus 24% at 20 years, respectively; p¼0.04). aspect of the clinical evaluation is taking a careful, detailed Among propensity-matched patients operated on in the history to elicit symptoms or diminution of exercise ca- latter time frame since 1985, these trends were no longer pacity. Patients with chronic severe AR who develop significant(survivalat1,5,and10yearsaftersurgerywas symptoms have a high risk of death if AVR is not per- 92%, 79%, and 51%, respectively for patients with severe formed. In a series of 246 patients with severe AR followed LV dysfunction and 96%, 83%, and 55% for the others, without surgery, those who were NYHA class III or IV respectively; p¼0.9).
Table 12. Summary of Recommendations for AR Intervention
Recommendations COR LOE References AVR is indicated for symptomatic patients with severe AR regardless of LV systolic function (stage D) I B (31,229,230) AVR is indicated for asymptomatic patients with chronic severe AR and LV systolic dysfunction IB(211,229, (LVEF <50%) (stage C2) 240,241) AVR is indicated for patients with severe AR (stage C or D) while undergoing cardiac surgery I C N/A for other indications AVR is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with severe AR with normal LV systolic function IIa B (225,242,243) (LVEF 50%) but with severe LV dilation (LVESD >50 mm, stage C2) AVR is reasonable in patients with moderate AR (stage B) who are undergoing other cardiac surgery IIa C N/A AVR may be considered for asymptomatic patients with severe AR and normal LV systolic function IIb C N/A (LVEF 50%, stage C1) but with progressive severe LV dilation (LVEDD >65 mm) if surgical risk is low*
*Particularly in the setting of progressive LV enlargement. AR indicates aortic regurgitation; AVR, aortic valve replacement; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; LV, left ventricular; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; and N/A, not applicable. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e87 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Supporting References: (31,211–221,229,230,240,241,248,249) with subsequent development of symptoms and/or LV See Online Data Supplement 12 for more information on systolic dysfunction. In a series of 104 initially asymp- outcome after surgery for AR. tomatic patients with normal LV systolic function followed > CLASS I for a mean of 8 years, an LVESD 50 mm was associated 2. AVR is indicated for asymptomatic patients with chronic severe with a risk of death, symptoms, and/or LV dysfunction of AR and LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) at rest (stage C2) 19% per year. In a second study of 101 similar patients if no other cause for systolic dysfunction is identified followed for a mean of 5 years, this risk was 7% per year. (211,229,240,241). (Level of Evidence: B) In a third study of 75 similar patients followed for a mean of 10 years, the risk was 7.6% per year. Among patients After AVR, LV systolic function is an important undergoing AVR, a smaller LVESD is associated with determinant of survival and functional status for chronic both better survival and improvement in LV systolic severe AR. Optimal outcomes are obtained when surgery is function after surgery. Most studies used unadjusted LV performed before LVEF decreases below 50%. However, dimension, with more recent data suggesting that indexing among patients with LV systolic dysfunction, LV function for body size may be appropriate, particularly in women or will improve in many after surgery, especially those with small patients. A study of 246 patients that adjusted end- minimal or no symptoms, mild versus severe LV systolic systolic dimension for body size suggested that an end- dysfunction, and a brief duration of LV dysfunction. A systolic dimension 25 mm/m2 is associated with a poor series of 37 patients with severe AR who underwent AVR outcome in asymptomatic patients. This has been con- were studied, all of whom had preoperative LV dysfunction firmed by a subsequent study of 294 asymptomatic patients but preserved exercise capacity (including 8 asymptomatic in which an end-systolic dimension >24 mm/m2 was an patients). In the 10 patients in whom LV dysfunction had independent predictor of LV systolic dysfunction, symp- developed <14 months preoperatively, there was a greater toms, or death, and an earlier study of 32 patients in which improvement in LV systolic function and regression of LV an end-systolic dimension >26 mm/m2 was associated dilatation compared with those patients who had a longer with persistent LV dilation after AVR. Other studies have duration of LV dysfunction. Patients with preserved ex- suggested that end-systolic volume index is a more sensi- ercise capacity had higher survival rates, a shorter duration tive predictor of cardiac events than end-systolic dimension of LV dysfunction, and a persistent improvement in LV in asymptomatic patients, but values of end-systolic volume size and systolic function at late postoperative studies index identifying high-risk patients have varied between at 3 to 7 years. Thus, once LV systolic dysfunction 35 mL/m2 and 45 mL/m2 in 2 studies. Thus, more data (LVEF <50%) is demonstrated, results are optimized by are needed to determine threshold values of end-systolic referring for surgery rather than waiting for onset of volume index with which to make recommendations for symptoms or more severe LV dysfunction. surgery in asymptomatic patients. Supporting References: (17,211–220,229,240–242,249,250) Supporting References: (17,31,32,196,197,199,203–205, CLASS I 208,212–216,218,242,243,249,251–254) 3. AVR is indicated for patients with severe AR (stage C or D) See Online Data Supplement 12 for more information on while undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications. (Level of AVR in asymptomatic patients. Evidence: C) CLASS IIa Patients with chronic severe AR should undergo AVR if 2. AVR is reasonable in patients with moderate AR (stage B) while they are referred for other forms of cardiac surgery, such as undergoing surgery on the ascending aorta, CABG, or mitral CABG, mitral valve surgery, or replacement of the valve surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) ascending aorta. This will prevent both the hemodynamic Because of the likelihood of progression of AR and the consequences of persistent AR during the perioperative need for future AVR in patients with moderate AR, it is period and the possible need for a second cardiac operation reasonable to replace the aortic valve in patients who have in the near future. evidence of primary aortic valve leaflet disease or significant
CLASS IIa aortic dilation if they are referred for other forms of cardiac 1. AVR is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with severe AR surgery, such as CABG, mitral valve surgery, or replace- with normal LV systolic function (LVEF ‡50%) but with severe LV ment of the ascending aorta. > > 2 dilation (LVESD 50 mm or indexed LVESD 25 mm/m )(stage CLASS IIb (Level of Evidence: B) C2) (225,242,243). 1. AVR may be considered for asymptomatic patients with severe ‡ LVESD in patients with chronic AR reflects both the AR and normal LV systolic function at rest (LVEF 50%, stage severity of the LV volume overload and the degree of LV C1) but with progressive severe LV dilatation (LV end-diastolic dimension >65 mm) if surgical risk is low. (Level of Evidence: C) systolic shortening. An elevated end-systolic dimension often reflects LV systolic dysfunction with a depressed LV end-diastolic dimension is indicative of the severity LVEF. If LVEF is normal, an increased LVESD indicates of LV volume overload in patients with chronic AR. It is a significant degree of LV remodeling and is associated significantly associated with development of symptoms e88 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 and/or LV systolic dysfunction in asymptomatic patients Bicuspid aortic valves are frequently associated with but less so than LVESD. Similarly, end-diastolic volume aortic dilation either at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva index is less predictive than end-systolic volume index in or, more frequently, in the ascending aorta. In some pa- asymptomatic patients. However, especially in young pa- tients, severe aneurysmal aortic dilation may develop. The tients with severe AR, progressive increases in end- incidence of aortic dilation is higher in patients with fusion diastolic dimension are associated with a subsequent need of the right and noncoronary cusps than the more common for surgery. In a series of 104 initially asymptomatic pa- phenotype of fusion of the right and left coronary cusps. tients with normal LV systolic function followed for a In a series of 191 patients with bicuspid aortic valves un- mean of 8 years, an LV end-diastolic dimension of 70 mm dergoing echocardiography, those with fusion of the right was associated with a risk of death, symptoms, and/or or left coronary cusp and the noncoronary cusp had a LV dysfunction of 10% per year. In a second study of 101 greater prevalence of aortic dilation than those with the patients followed for a mean of 5 years, this risk was 6.3% fusion of the right and left coronary cusps (68% versus per year; in a third study of 75 patients followed for a mean 40%). This was confirmed in a subsequent report of 167 of 10 years, the risk was 5.8% per year. Marked increases patients with bicuspid aortic valves studied with CT and in end-diastolic dimension ( 80 mm) have been associated echocardiography. Patients with fusion involving the with sudden death. The writing committee thought that noncoronary cusp are also more likely to have dilation of AVR may be considered for the asymptomatic patient with the ascending aorta, rather than the sinuses, which often severe AR, normal LV systolic function, and severe LV extends to the transverse arch. dilatation (LV end-diastolic dimension >65 mm) if there In nearly all patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, TTE is a low surgical risk and particularly if there is evidence provides good quality images of the aortic sinuses with of progressive LV dilation. accurate diameter measurements. Further cephalad seg- New markers of severity of AR and its resultant LV ments of the ascending aorta can be imaged in many pa- volume overload are under investigation. These include tients by moving the transducer up 1 or 2 interspaces to measures of regurgitant fraction, regurgitant volume, and view the arch from a suprasternal notch approach. The effective regurgitant orifice area; LV volume assessment echocardiographic report should include aortic measure- with 3D echocardiography; noninvasive measures of LV ments at the aortic annulus, sinuses, sinotubular junction, end-systolic stress and systolic and diastolic strain rates; and mid-ascending aorta, along with an indicator of the and biomarkers such as brain natriuretic peptide. Further quality and completeness of aortic imaging in each patient experience with these new markers pertaining to patient with a bicuspid aortic valve. Doppler interrogation of the outcomes is necessary before firm recommendations can be proximal descending aorta allows evaluation for aortic proposed. coarctation, which is associated with the presence of a Supporting References: (32,196,197,203–207) bicuspid aortic valve. In 20% to 30% of patients with bicuspid valves, other 5. Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Aortopathy family members also have bicuspid valve disease and/or an associated aortopathy. A specific genetic cause has not been identified, and the patterns of inheritance are variable, so it Patients with a bicuspid aortic valve may also have an is important to take a family history and inform patients associated aortopathy consisting of aortic dilation, coarc- that other family members may be affected. Imaging of tation, or even aortic dissection. first-degree relatives is clearly appropriate if the patient has an associated aortopathy or a family history of VHD or 5.1. Bicuspid Aortic Valve aortopathy. Many valve experts also recommend screening 5.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up all first-degree relatives of patients with bicuspid aortic valve, although we do not yet have data addressing the 5.1.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS possible impact of screening on outcomes or the cost- CLASS I effectiveness of this approach. 1. An initial TTE is indicated in patients with a known bicuspid Supporting References: (255–261) aortic valve to evaluate valve morphology, to measure the severity of AS and AR, and to assess the shape and diameter of CLASS I the aortic sinuses and ascending aorta for prediction of clinical 2. Aortic magnetic resonance angiography or CT angiography is outcome and to determine timing of intervention (255–260). indicated in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve when (Level of Evidence: B) morphology of the aortic sinuses, sinotubular junction, or ascending aorta cannot be assessed accurately or fully by Most patients with a bicuspid aortic valve will develop AS echocardiography. (Level of Evidence: C) or AR over their lifetime. Standard echocardiographic ap- proaches for measurement of stenosis and regurgitant TTE can provide accurate assessment of the presence severity are key to optimal patient management as detailed in and severity of aortic dilation in most patients. However, in the recommendations for AS and AR (Sections 3 and 4). some patients, only the aortic sinuses can be visualized, JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e89 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline because the ascending aorta is obscured by intervening lung 5.1.2. Medical Therapy tissue. When echocardiographic images do not provide There are no proven drug therapies that have been shown adequate images of the ascending aorta to a distance to reduce the rate of progression of aortic dilation in pa- 4.0 cm from the valve plane, additional imaging is tients with aortopathy associated with bicuspid aortic valve. needed. TEE may be considered but requires sedation In patients with hypertension, control of BP with any and still may miss segments of the mid-ascending aorta. effective antihypertensive medication is warranted. Beta Magnetic resonance angiography or chest CT angiography blockers and ARBs have conceptual advantages to reduce provide accurate diameter measurements when aligned rate of progression but have not been shown to be bene- perpendicular to the long axis of the aorta. Advantages of ficial in clinical studies. magnetic resonance angiography and CT angiography compared with TTE include higher spatial (but lower 5.1.3. Intervention: Recommendations temporal) resolution and the ability to display a 3D CLASS I reconstruction of the entire length of the aorta. Magnetic 1. Operative intervention to repair the aortic sinuses or replace the resonance angiography and CT angiography aortic di- ascending aorta is indicated in patients with a bicuspid aortic ameters typically are 1 mm to 2 mm larger than echocar- valve if the diameter of the aortic sinuses or ascending aorta is diographic measurements because of inclusion of the aortic greater than 5.5 cm (113,267,268). (Level of Evidence: B) wall in the measurement and because echocardiographic measurements are made at end-diastole, whereas magnetic In 2 large long-term retrospective cohort studies of pa- resonance angiography or CT angiography measurements tients with bicuspid aortic valves, the incidence of aortic may represent an average value. Magnetic resonance an- dissection was very low. In a study of 642 patients followed giography imaging is preferred over CT angiography im- for a mean of 9 years, there were 5 dissections (3 ascending aging, when possible, because of the absence of ionizing and 2 descending). In another bicuspid aortic valve study radiation exposure in patients who likely will have multiple of 416 patients followed for a mean of 16 years, there were imaging studies over their lifetime. 2 dissections. In the latter report, the calculated incidence Supporting References: (261–263) of dissection was higher than the age-adjusted relative risk of the county’s general population (HR: 8.4; 95% CI: 2.1 5.1.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP: RECOMMENDATION to 33.5; p¼0.003) but was only 3.1 (95% CI: 0.5 to 9.5)
CLASS I cases per 10,000 patient-years. In patients with bicuspid 1. Serial evaluation of the size and morphology of the aortic si- aortic valves, data are limited regarding the degree of aortic nuses and ascending aorta by echocardiography, CMR, or CT dilation at which the risk of dissection is high enough angiography is recommended in patients with a bicuspid aortic to warrant operative intervention in patients who do not valve and an aortic diameter greater than 4.0 cm, with the fulfill criteria for AVR on the basis of severe AS or AR. examination interval determined by the degree and rate of Previous ACC/AHA guidelines have recommended sur- progression of aortic dilation and by family history. In patients gery when the degree of aortic dilation is >5.0 cm at any with an aortic diameter greater than 4.5 cm, this evaluation level, including sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, (Level of Evidence: C) should be performed annually. or ascending aorta. The current writing committee con- Patients with bicuspid aortic valves who have docu- siders the evidence supporting these previous recommen- mented dilation of the sinuses of Valsalva or ascending dations very limited and anecdotal and endorses a more aorta should have serial assessment of aortic morphology individualized approach. Surgery is recommended with because the aortopathy may progress with time. In a se- aortic dilation of 5.1 cm to 5.5 cm only if there is a family ries of 68 patients with bicuspid aortic valves, the mean history of aortic dissection or rapid progression of dilation. rate of diameter progression was 0.5 mm per year at the In all other patients, operation is indicated if there is sinuses of Valsalva (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7), 0.5 mm per year more severe dilation (5.5 cm). The writing committee also at the sinotubular junction (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7), and 0.9 does not recommend the application of formulas to adjust mm per year at the proximal ascending aorta (95% CI: the aortic diameter for body size. Furthermore, prior rec- 0.6 to 1.2). Others have reported mean rates of increase ommendations were frequently ambiguous with regard of up to 2 mm per year. Aortic imaging at least annually to the level to which they apply (sinus segment versus is prudent in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve and tubular ascending aorta) and did not acknowledge the significant aortic dilation (>4.5 cm), a rapid rate of normal difference in diameter at these levels, with the sinus change in aortic diameter, and in those with a family segment 0.5 cm larger in diameter than the normal history of aortic dissection. In patients with milder ascending aorta. In Heart Valve Centers of Excellence, dilation that shows no change on sequential studies and a valve-sparing replacement of the aortic sinuses and negative family history, a longer interval between imaging ascending aorta yields excellent results in patients who do studiesisappropriate. not have severely deformed or dysfunctional valves. Supporting References: (264–266) Supporting References: (113,244,245,266–273) e90 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
CLASS IIa mitral annulus with extension of the calcium into the 1. Operative intervention to repair the aortic sinuses or replace the leaflets. Hemodynamic severity is best characterized by the ascending aorta is reasonable in patients with bicuspid aortic planimetered mitral valve area and the calculated mitral valves if the diameter of the aortic sinuses or ascending aorta is valve area from the diastolic pressure half-time. The defi- greater than 5.0 cm and a risk factor for dissection is present nition of “severe” MS is based on the severity at which (family history of aortic dissection or if the rate of increase in symptoms occur as well as the severity at which interven- diameter is ‡0.5 cm per year). (Level of Evidence: C) tion will improve symptoms. Thus, a mitral valve area In patients with bicuspid aortic valves, data are limited 1.5 cm2 is considered severe. This usually corresponds to regarding the degree of aortic dilation at which the risk of a transmitral mean gradient of >5mmHgto10mmHg dissection is high enough to warrant operative intervention at a normal heart rate. However, the mean pressure in patients who do not fulfill criteria for AVR on the basis gradient is highly dependent on the transvalvular flow and of severe AS or AR. In patients at higher risk of dissection diastolic filling period and will vary greatly with changes in based on family history or evidence of rapid progression of heart rate. The diastolic pressure half-time is dependent aortic dilation ( 0.5 cm per year), surgical intervention is not only on the degree of mitral obstruction but also the reasonable when the aortic diameter is >5.0 cm. compliance of the left ventricle and the LA and other Supporting References: (266,268–270,274) measures of mitral valve area, such as the continuity
CLASS IIa equation or the proximal isovelocity surface area, may be 2. Replacement of the ascending aorta is reasonable in patients used if discrepancies exist. with a bicuspid aortic valve who are undergoing aortic valve Supporting References: (280–286) surgery because of severe AS or AR (Sections 3.2.3 and 4.3.3) if the diameter of the ascending aorta is greater than 4.5 cm. (Level of Evidence: C) 6.2. Rheumatic MS See Figure 3 for indications for intervention for rheumatic MS. In patients with bicuspid aortic valves, data are limited regarding the degree of aortic dilation at which the risk of 6.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up dissection is high enough to warrant replacement of the 6.2.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdINITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS ascending aorta at the time of AVR. The risk of progres- sive aortic dilation and dissection after AVR in patients CLASS I 1. TTE is indicated in patients with signs or symptoms of MS to with bicuspid aortic valves has been the subject of several fi establish the diagnosis, quantify hemodynamic severity (mean studies, although de nitive data are lacking. In patients pressure gradient, mitral valve area, and pulmonary artery undergoing AVR because of severe AS or AR, replacement pressure), assess concomitant valvular lesions, and demon- of the ascending aorta is reasonable when the aortic strate valve morphology (to determine suitability for mitral diameter is >4.5 cm. Replacement of the sinuses of Val- commissurotomy) (8,287–295). (Level of Evidence: B) salva is not necessary in all cases and should be individu- alized based on the displacement of the coronary ostia, Suspicion for MS may arise from a childhood history of fi because progressive dilation of the sinus segment after rheumatic fever or a characteristic auscultatory nding of separate valve and graft repair is uncommon. an opening snap after the second heart sound and subse- Supporting References: (266,268–270,275–279) quent apical diastolic murmur, but such patients often present with nonspecific complaints of exertional dyspnea 6. Mitral Stenosis with an unrevealing physical examination. In the vast majority of cases, TTE can elucidate the anatomy and functional significance of MS but must be undertaken with 6.1. Stages of MS great care. Use of 2D scanning from the parasternal long- Medical and interventional approaches to the management axis window can identify the characteristic diastolic dom- of patients with valvular MS depend on accurate diagnosis ing of the mitral valve, whereas short-axis scanning will of the cause and stage of the disease process. Table 13 demonstrate commissural fusion and allow planimetry of shows the stages of mitral valve disease ranging from pa- the mitral orifice. This must be done carefully to obtain the tients at risk of MS (stage A) or with progressive hemo- smallest orifice in space and the largest opening in time. dynamic obstruction (stage B) to severe asymptomatic 3D echocardiography (either TTE or TEE) may allow (stage C) and symptomatic MS (stage D). Each of these greater accuracy but is not yet routinely used. Doppler stages is defined by valve anatomy, valve hemodynamics, hemodynamics are typically obtained from the apical the consequences of valve obstruction on the left atrium 4–chamber or long-axis view and should include peak and (LA) and pulmonary circulation, and patient symptoms. mean transvalvular gradient as calculated by the simplified The anatomic features of the stages of MS are based on a Bernoulli equation, averaged from 3 to 5 beats in sinus rheumatic etiology for the disease. There are patients who rhythm and 5 to 10 beats in AF. Heart rate should always have a nonrheumatic etiology of MS due to senile calcific be included in the report because it greatly affects trans- disease (Section 6.3) in whom there is a heavily calcified valvular gradient due to the differential impact of JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e91 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 13. Stages of MS
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms A At risk of MS Mild valve doming during diastole Normal transmitral flow velocity None None B Progressive MS Rheumatic valve changes with Increased transmitral flow velocities Mild-to-moderate LA enlargement None commissural fusion and diastolic MVA >1.5 cm2 Normal pulmonary pressure at rest doming of the mitral valve Diastolic pressure half-time <150 ms leaflets Planimetered MVA >1.5 cm2 C Asymptomatic Rheumatic valve changes with MVA 1.5 cm2 Severe LA enlargement None severe MS commissural fusion and diastolic (MVA 1.0 cm2 with very severe MS) Elevated PASP >30 mm Hg doming of the mitral valve Diastolic pressure half-time 150 ms leaflets (Diastolic pressure half-time 220 ms Planimetered MVA 1.5 cm2 with very severe MS) (MVA 1.0 cm2 with very severe MS) D Symptomatic Rheumatic valve changes with MVA 1.5 cm2 Severe LA enlargement Decreased severe MS commissural fusion and diastolic (MVA 1.0 cm2 with very severe MS) Elevated PASP >30 mm Hg exercise doming of the mitral valve Diastolic pressure half-time 150 ms tolerance leaflets (Diastolic pressure half-time 220 ms Exertional Planimetered MVA 1.5 cm2 with very severe MS) dyspnea The transmitral mean pressure gradient should be obtained to further determine the hemodynamic effect of the MS and is usually >5 mm Hg to 10 mm Hg in severe MS; however, due to the variability of the mean pressure gradient with heart rate and forward flow, it has not been included in the criteria for severity. LA indicates left atrial; LV, left ventricular; MS, mitral stenosis; MVA, mitral valve area; and PASP, pulmonary artery systolic pressure.
tachycardia on diastolic versus systolic duration. acquired, from which optimal measurements of minimal Concomitant MR should be sought and quantified as orifice area can be obtained offline. However, in the vast recommended, along with other valve lesions (Section majority of patients with MS, valve morphology and lesion 7.3.1.1). RV systolic pressure is typically estimated by severity can be obtained with TTE. A key exception is in continuous wave Doppler of TR. Mitral valve morphology patients being considered for percutaneous mitral balloon and feasibility for percutaneous mitral balloon commis- commissurotomy, in whom left atrial cavity and appendage surotomy or surgical commissurotomy can be assessed in thrombi must be excluded. Although TTE may identify several ways, most commonly via the Wilkins score, which risk factors for thrombus formation, several studies show combines valve thickening, mobility, and calcification with that TTE has poor sensitivity for detecting such thrombi, subvalvular scarring in a 16–point scale. Characterization thus mandating a TEE before percutaneous mitral balloon of commissural calcification is also useful. Additional commissurotomy. Although TTE is generally accurate in echocardiographic tools for assessment of MS include the grading MR, TEE may offer additional quantitation and mitral pressure half-time, which is inversely related to assurance that MR >2þ is not present, which generally mitral valve area. However, the mitral pressure half-time is precludes percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy. also affected by left atrial and LV compliance. Thus, other Supporting References: (288,296–298) methods for calculation of the mitral valve area, such as the d continuity method and proximal isovelocity surface area 6.2.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTING CHANGING SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS method, could be used if necessary. Left atrial dimension, Patients with an established diagnosis of MS may experi- area, and volume index should be measured, with careful ence a change in symptoms from progressive narrowing of interrogation for possible left atrial thrombus (although full the mitral valve, worsening of concomitant MR or other exclusion of thrombus requires TEE). As with any echo- valve lesions, or a change in hemodynamic state due to cardiogram, full characterization of global and regional LV such factors as AF, fever, anemia, hyperthyroidism, or and RV function should be reported. postoperative state. In such cases, a TTE examination Supporting References: (8,287–295) should be repeated to quantify the mitral valve gradient and area, as well as other parameters that may contribute CLASS I to a change in symptoms. 2. TEE should be performed in patients considered for percuta- neous mitral balloon commissurotomy to assess the presence 6.2.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP or absence of left atrial thrombus and to further evaluate the Rheumatic MS is a slowly progressive disease, character- – (Level of Evidence: B) severity of MR (288,296 298). ized by a prolonged latent phase between the initial TEE offers excellent visualization of the mitral valve rheumatic illness and the development of valve stenosis. and LA and is an alternative approach to assessment of The latent phase is an interval typically measured in de- MS in patients with technically limited transthoracic cades in the developed world but considerably shorter pe- interrogation. Three-dimensional datasets may be riods in the developing world, likely due to recurrent e92 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Figure 3. Indications for Intervention for Rheumatic MS
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; LA, left atrial; MR, mitral regurgitation; MS, mitral stenosis; MVA, mitral valve area; MVR, mitral valve surgery (repair or replacement); NYHA, 1 New York Heart Association; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; PMBC, percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy; and T /2, pressure half-time.
carditis. Once mild stenosis has developed, further nar- 6.2.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC CATHETERIZATION rowing is typical, although the rate of progression is highly In the contemporary era, adequate assessment of MS and variable. In 103 patients with MS followed for 3.3 2 associated lesions can be obtained in the vast majority of 2 years, valve area decreased at 0.09 cm per year, although patients by TTE, occasionally supplemented by TEE. there was significant interpatient variability. Larger valves However, in those few patients with nondiagnostic studies decreased in area more rapidly, although the same absolute or whose clinical and echocardiographic findings conflict, it decrease would be expected to have greater impact in the is essential to further characterize MS hemodynamics and more stenotic valves. Importantly, progressive enlargement catheterization as the next best approach. Catheterization in the right ventricle and rise in RV systolic pressure were is also the only method available to measure absolute observed, even in the absence of a decrease in mitral valve pressures inside the heart, which may be important in area. Accordingly, repeat TTE at intervals dictated by valve clinical decision making. Such studies must be carried out area is an important aspect of disease management, even in by personnel experienced with catheterization laboratory patients without symptoms. TTE should be performed to hemodynamics with simultaneous pressure measurements re-evaluate asymptomatic patients with MS and stable in the left ventricle and LA, ideally via transseptal cathe- clinical findings to assess pulmonary artery pressure and valve terization. Although a properly performed mean pulmo- 2 gradient (very severe MS with mitral valve area <1.0 cm nary artery wedge pressure is an acceptable substitute for 2 every year, severe MS with mitral valve area 1.5 cm every mean LA pressure, the LV to pulmonary wedge gradient 1 to 2 years; and progressive MS with mitral valve area will overestimate the true transmitral gradient due to phase 2 >1.5 cm every 3 to 5 years) (Table 4). delay and delayed transmission of pressure changes. The Supporting References: (299–301) Gorlin equation is applied for calculation of mitral valve JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e93 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline area, using cardiac output obtained via thermodilution anticoagulation. One exception to trials excluding patients (when there is no significant TR) or the Fick method. with MS is the NASPEAF (National Study for Prevention Ideally, measured oxygen consumption should be used in of Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Of the 495 high- this calculation. Full right-heart pressures should be re- risk patients in the cohort, 316 patients had MS. Of these ported. In cases where exertional symptoms seem out of 316 patients, 95 had a prior embolization. Patients in the proportion to resting hemodynamic severity, data may be study were randomized to standard anticoagulation with obtained during exercise. VKA (international normalized ratio [INR] goal 2 to 3) Supporting References: (302–304) versus the combination of an antiplatelet agent and VKA anticoagulation with a lower INR goal (0.10 to 2.5). The 6.2.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: RECOMMENDATION study demonstrated a highly significant increased risk for CLASS I embolism among those patients with VHD with prior 1. Exercise testing with Doppler or invasive hemodynamic events versus those without (9.1% versus 2.3% over 3 years; assessment is recommended to evaluate the response of the p<0.001). Further larger studies are required to determine mean mitral gradient and pulmonary artery pressure in patients if antiplatelet agents should be used in patients with AF with MS when there is a discrepancy between resting Doppler echocardiographic findings and clinical symptoms or signs. and MS. Although no trial evidence exists for anti- (Level of Evidence: C) coagulation when LA or left atrial appendage thrombi are incidentally found (generally by TEE), it is well docu- Exercise testing with hemodynamics yields a number of mented that even in sinus rhythm, such clots are predis- data points to help in the management of MS when a posed to embolize, and so anticoagulation with VKA is patient’s symptoms seem significantly greater or less than recommended. Anticoagulation should be given indefi- would be expected from TTE. Results have been published nitely to patients with these indications. It is controversial using both exercise and dobutamine with Doppler echo- as to whether long-term anticoagulation should be given to cardiography, although exercise is preferred in general as patients with MS in normal sinus rhythm on the basis of the more physiological test. Most experience is with left atrial enlargement or spontaneous contrast on TEE. treadmill exercise, with images and Doppler obtained The efficacy of the novel oral anticoagulant agents in immediately after stress, but bicycle exercise allows data preventing embolic events has not been studied in patients acquisition at various stages of exercise. Bicycle or arm with MS. ergometry exercise testing during cardiac catheterization Supporting References: (309–315) can also be performed for direct measurements of pulmo- CLASS IIa nary artery wedge pressure and pulmonary pressures at rest 1. Heart rate control can be beneficial in patients with MS and AF and with exercise. Simple functional capacity is important and fast ventricular response. (Level of Evidence: C) to help quantify the patient’s symptoms and assess changes over time. Changes in valve gradient are also helpful, as is Patients with MS are prone to developing atrial ar- the presence of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension. rhythmias. Thirty percent to 40% of patients with severe Although exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension does MS will develop AF. Significant detrimental hemody- not have a formal place in these guidelines, a rise in RV namic consequences may be associated with the acute systolic pressure to >60 mm Hg to 70 mm Hg should development of AF, primarily from the rapid ventricular prompt the clinician to carefully consider the patient’s response, which shortens the diastolic filling period and symptoms. Most patients can continue to be followed increases left atrial pressure. The treatment of acute AF is without exercise testing by careful clinical assessment and anticoagulation and control of the heart rate response with periodic resting echocardiograms as indicated above. negative dromotropic agents. If the rate cannot be Supporting References: (305–308) adequately controlled with medications, cardioversion may be necessary to improve hemodynamics. In the stable pa- 6.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations tient, the decision for rate control versus rhythm control is CLASS I dependent on multiple factors, including the duration of 1. Anticoagulation (vitamin K antagonist [VKA] or heparin) is AF, hemodynamic response to AF, left atrial size, prior indicated in patients with 1) MS and AF (paroxysmal, persis- episodes of AF, and a history of embolic events. It is more tent, or permanent), 2) MS and a prior embolic event, or 3) MS difficult to achieve rhythm control in patients with MS – (Level of Evidence: B) and a left atrial thrombus (309 315). because the rheumatic process itself may lead to fibrosis of In the presurgical era, patients with MS were at high the intermodal and interatrial tracts and damage to the risk for arterial embolization, which was further elevated in sinoatrial node. those with AF and prior embolic events. Anticoagulation Supporting Reference: (316) with VKA has long been recommended for patients CLASS IIb with MS with AF or prior embolism and has been so 1. Heart rate control may be considered for patients with MS in well accepted that patients with MS have generally normal sinus rhythm and symptoms associated with exercise been excluded from AF trials examining the utility of (317,318). (Level of Evidence: B) e94 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
It is well known that the proportion of the cardiac cycle not support the general use of heart rate control in patients occupied by diastole decreases with increasing heart rate, with MS and normal sinus rhythm. Nevertheless, in thereby increasing the mean flow rate across the mitral selected patients whose symptoms worsen markedly with valve (assuming constant cardiac output) with a consequent exercise, a trial of beta blockade might be considered. rise in mean mitral gradient in MS in proportion to the Other negative chronotropic agents have not been evalu- square of the flow rate. A study of normal volunteers un- ated in patients with MS. dergoing bicycle exercise echocardiography demonstrated a Supporting References: (317,318) reduction in the diastolic interval from 604 milliseconds to 219 milliseconds as the heart rate increased from 60 6.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations beats per minute to 120 beats per minute indicating a 63% See Table 14 for a summary of recommendations from this reduction in total diastolic time. Maintaining the same section. cardiac output would require a 38% increase in mean flow rate during diastole, which, by squared relation of the CLASS I Bernoulli equation, requires an increase in mean mitral 1. Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy is recommended gradient of approximately 90%. Thus, it is rational to think for symptomatic patients with severe MS (mitral valve area £ 2 that limiting tachycardia with beta blockade might be 1.5 cm , stage D) and favorable valve morphology in the beneficial in patients with MS in normal sinus rhythm. absence of left atrial thrombus or moderate-to-severe MR (280–284,286,328). (Level of Evidence: A) Nevertheless, the only RCT on the impact of beta blockade on exercise duration in MS failed to show this salutary Several RCTs have established the safety and efficacy of effect. One study looked at 15 patients with an average percutaneous balloon mitral commissurotomy compared mitral area of 1.0 cm2 (NYHA class II and III) randomized with surgical closed or open commissurotomy. The tech- in crossover fashion to atenolol or placebo. Although the nique is generally performed by advancing 1 balloon exercise heart rate was significantly reduced and diastolic catheters across the mitral valve and inflating them, thereby filling interval increased by 40%, there was no increase in splitting the commissures. For the percutaneous approach functional capacity, and maximal O2 consumption actually to have optimal outcome, it is essential that the valve fell by 11%, with cardiac index falling by 20% when pa- morphology be predictive of success, generally being mo- tients were treated with beta blockade. One study had bile, relatively thin, and free of calcium. This is usually more neutral results in a trial of 17 patients with NYHA assessed by the Wilkins score, although other risk scores class I and II MS, and 7 patients had improvement in have also shown utility. Clinical factors such as age, maximal oxygen consumption, whereas 4 had a deteriora- NYHA class, and presence or absence of AF are also tion in symptoms. Overall, anaerobic threshold was predictive of outcome. Percutaneous mitral balloon com- reduced by 11% with atenolol therapy, so these studies do missurotomy should be performed by experienced
Table 14. Summary of Recommendations for MS Intervention
Recommendations COR LOE References PMBC is recommended for symptomatic patients with severe MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, stage D) and IA(280–284,286) favorable valve morphology in the absence of contraindications Mitral valve surgery is indicated in severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III/IV) with severe IB(319–324) MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, stage D) who are not high risk for surgery and who are not candidates for or failed previous PMBC Concomitant mitral valve surgery is indicated for patients with severe MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, I C N/A stage C or D) undergoing other cardiac surgery PMBC is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with very severe MS (MVA 1.0 cm2, stage C) IIa C (293,325–327) and favorable valve morphology in the absence of contraindications Mitral valve surgery is reasonable for severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III/IV) with IIa C N/A severe MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, stage D), provided there are other operative indications PMBC may be considered for asymptomatic patients with severe MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, stage C) and IIb C N/A favorable valve morphology who have new onset of AF in the absence of contraindications PMBC may be considered for symptomatic patients with MVA >1.5 cm2 if there is evidence of IIb C N/A hemodynamically significant MS during exercise PMBC may be considered for severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III/IV) with severe MS IIb C N/A (MVA 1.5 cm2, stage D) who have suboptimal valve anatomy and are not candidates for surgery or at high risk for surgery Concomitant mitral valve surgery may be considered for patients with moderate MS IIb C N/A (MVA 1.6–2.0 cm2) undergoing other cardiac surgery Mitral valve surgery and excision of the left atrial appendage may be considered for patients with IIb C N/A severe MS (MVA 1.5 cm2, stages C and D) who have had recurrent embolic events while receiving adequate anticoagulation
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; MS, mitral stenosis; MVA, mitral valve area; NYHA, New York Heart Association; and PMBC, percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e95 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline operators with immediate availability of surgical backup asymptomatic. Most patients with mitral valve area 1.0 for potential complications. Percutaneous mitral balloon cm2 will manifest a true reduction in functional capacity commissurotomy is also useful in patients with restenosis even if the gradual onset is not obvious. In addition, following prior commissurotomy if restenosis is the con- numerous studies have demonstrated a greater likelihood of sequence of refusion of both commissures. successful percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy Supporting References: (280–284,286,292,294,325,328–331) when the valve is less thickened and calcified, indicating See Online Data Supplement 13 for a summary of RCTs intervention before this state. Furthermore, it is preferable that have established the safety and efficacy of percutaneous to intervene before the development of severe pulmonary mitral balloon commissurotomy in comparison to surgical closed hypertension, because those patients with near systemic or open commissurotomy. pulmonary pressure show reduced RV function and
CLASS I persistent pulmonary hypertension following percutaneous 2. Mitral valve surgery (repair, commissurotomy, or valve mitral balloon commissurotomy or MVR. replacement) is indicated in severely symptomatic patients Supporting References: (293,325–327) (NYHA class III to IV) with severe MS (mitral valve area £1.5 CLASS IIa cm2, stage D) who are not high risk for surgery and who are not 2. Mitral valve surgery is reasonable for severely symptomatic candidates for or who have failed previous percutaneous mitral patients (NYHA class III to IV) with severe MS (mitral valve balloon commissurotomy (319–324). (Level of Evidence: B) area £1.5 cm2, stage D), provided there are other operative Mitral valve surgery is an established therapy for MS, indications (e.g., aortic valve disease, CAD, TR, aortic aneu- predating percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy. rysm). (Level of Evidence: C) Surgical options may involve commissurotomy (either A situation may arise in which a patient who is other- closed, where the valve is opened blindly through the LA wise a candidate for percutaneous mitral balloon com- or left ventricle, or open, which allows more extensive missurotomy (favorable valve anatomy, no atrial thrombus surgery under direct visualization). MVR may be preferred or significant MR) has other cardiac conditions that should in the presence of severe valvular thickening and sub- fi fl be addressed surgically. These patients should undergo a valvular brosis with lea et tethering. In addition to those comprehensive operation to address all lesions, including who have suboptimal valve anatomy (or failed percutaneous MS. However, as percutaneous intervention has evolved, mitral balloon commissurotomy), patients with moderate particularly that involving the coronary arteries and aortic or severe TR may also have a better outcome with a sur- valve, there will be circumstances in which an all- gical approach that includes tricuspid valve repair. Because percutaneous approach will be favored. This decision the natural history of MS is one of slow progression over should take into account the local expertise at the treating decades and MS does not have long-standing detrimental facility. effects on the left ventricle, surgery should be delayed until the patient has severe limiting symptoms (NYHA class III CLASS IIb to IV). 1. Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy may be consid- ered for asymptomatic patients with severe MS (mitral valve Supporting References: (283,319–324,332–334) area £1.5 cm2, stage C) and valve morphology favorable for CLASS I percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy in the absence of 3. Concomitant mitral valve surgery is indicated for patients with left atrial thrombus or moderate-to-severe MR who have new 2 severe MS (mitral valve area £1.5 cm , stage C or D) undergoing onset of AF. (Level of Evidence: C) cardiac surgery for other indications. (Level of Evidence: C) Patients with mild and asymptomatic MS may develop Studies of the natural history of moderate-to-severe MS AF as an isolated event that can be managed without demonstrate progressive decrement in valve area of 0.09 mitral valve intervention for many years. However, in many cm2 per year. For patients with other indications for open patients, the onset of AF may be a harbinger of a more heart surgery, mitral intervention should be undertaken, symptomatic phase of the disease. Percutaneous mitral particularly in those patients with valves amenable to open balloon commissurotomy may be considered in such cases, commissurotomy or valve repair. particularly if rate control is difficult to achieve or if the (300) 2 Supporting Reference: mitral valve area is 1.5 cm . Lowering the left atrial CLASS IIa pressure by percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy 1. Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy is reasonable for may be useful if a rhythm control approach is taken for AF. asymptomatic patients with very severe MS (mitral valve area £1.0 cm2, stage C) and favorable valve morphology in the CLASS IIb absence of left atrial thrombus or moderate-to-severe MR 2. Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy may be considered (293,325–327). (Level of Evidence: C) for symptomatic patients with mitral valve area greater than 1.5 cm2 if there is evidence of hemodynamically significant MS Although it is a general rule in VHD not to intervene based on pulmonary artery wedge pressure greater than 25 mm before the onset of symptoms, there are patients who will Hg or mean mitral valve gradient greater than 15 mm Hg during clearly benefit from intervention while still ostensibly exercise. (Level of Evidence: C) e96 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
It is recognized that there are patients with genuine of MR), as this might be a preferable method for treating symptoms from MS, even with mitral valve area between worsening MS. 2 2 fi 1.6 cm and 2.0 cm , who would bene t from percuta- CLASS IIb neous mitral balloon commissurotomy. This may occur for 5. Mitral valve surgery and excision of the left atrial appendage several reasons. First, given the vagaries of clinical imaging, may be considered for patients with severe MS (mitral valve it is possible that the valve is actually smaller than the re- area £1.5 cm2, stages C and D) who have had recurrent embolic ported area. Second, for a given valve area, the transmitral events while receiving adequate anticoagulation. (Level of gradient will be higher in persons with a large body surface Evidence: C) area or those with other reasons to have an elevated cardiac fi A large prospective study of patients with MS shows an output (e.g., arteriovenous stulae). Third, there is a vari- elevated risk of recurrent embolism among patients with able relation of pulmonary vascular resistance in compari- prior embolic events irrespective of the presence or absence son to mitral valve area. Thus, patients may experience of AF. The risk is reduced, but not eliminated, by percu- clinical improvement in such cases. This procedure may taneous mitral balloon commissurotomy. Another study of be performed for these indications in patients with valve 205 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery, 58 with morphology suitable for percutaneous mitral balloon ligation of the left atrial appendage, demonstrated that lack commissurotomy. of ligation was significantly associated with future embolic Supporting Reference: (335) events (odds ratio [OR]: 6.7). This study also noted that in CLASS IIb 6 of the 58 ligation patients, communication of the left 3. Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy may be consid- atrial appendage and LA cavity was still present. Residual ered for severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III to IV) communication between the left atrial appendage and LA £ 2 with severe MS (mitral valve area 1.5 cm , stage D) who have cavity was noted in 60% of patients undergoing left atrial a suboptimal valve anatomy and who are not candidates for appendage ligation in a subsequent study, suggesting that surgery or at high risk for surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) left atrial appendage excision and not ligation may be the Both the Wilkins score and the presence of commis- preferred approach in selected patients. sural calcification predict successful percutaneous mitral Supporting References: (336,337) balloon commissurotomy. However in all such series, See Online Data Supplements 14 and 15 for more infor- this predictive ability is not absolute, with 42% of pa- mation on the outcomes of percutaneous mitral balloon tients with a Wilkins score >8 having an optimal commissurotomy. outcome (25% increase in mitral valve area to >1.5 cm2) and 38% of patients with commissural calcium having 6.3. Nonrheumatic MS event-free survival at 1.8 years. Accordingly, severely Although the vast majority of MS in the world results symptomatic patients who are poor surgical candidates fi may benefit from percutaneous mitral balloon commis- from rheumatic heart disease, senile calci cMSisfound surotomy even with suboptimal valve anatomy. Patients with increasing frequency in the elderly population in North America. This is due to calcification of the mitral who refuse surgery may also be considered for percuta- fi fl neous mitral balloon commissurotomy after discussion annulus and calci cation that extends into the lea ets, about the potential complications associated with this which cause both a narrowing of the annulus and rigidity of the leaflets without commissural fusion. Mitral annular procedure when performed in patients with suboptimal fi valve anatomy. calci cation has been associated with decreased renal function and inflammatory markers like C-reactive pro- Supporting References: (292–294) tein; however, senile calcificMSiscommonintheelderly CLASS IIb population with normal renal function and is associated 4. Concomitant mitral valve surgery may be considered for pa- 2 2 with senile AS. Data are relatively sparse on the natural tients with moderate MS (mitral valve area 1.6 cm to 2.0 cm ) history of senile calcificMS.Asmallstudyof32patients undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications. (Level of Evidence: C) observed over a mean of 2.6 years demonstrated pro- gression in mean mitral valve gradient in only half of the Consideration of concomitant MVR at the time of other subjects. However, in those with progression, the rate of heart surgery must balance several factors, including the change averaged 2 mm Hg per year and changed as severity of MS (based on mitral valve area, mean pressure rapidly as 9 mm Hg per year. More rapid progression gradient, and pulmonary arterial pressure); rate of pro- was found in younger patients, but surprisingly this was gression; history of AF; skill of the surgeon; and perceived not predicted by a reduced glomerular filtration rate. risk of repeat cardiac surgery if the MS progresses to a Although the mean pressure gradient from Doppler symptomatic state. Consideration should also include the echocardiography is accurate, the use of a mitral valve suitability of the valve for subsequent percutaneous mitral area from diastolic half-time is uncertain in this popula- balloon commissurotomy (echocardiogram score and presence tion. Indications for intervention in patients with senile JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e97 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline calcific MS are different from those for rheumatic MS atrial and pulmonary venous pressure, leading to pulmo- for the following reasons. First, because calcification in- nary congestion and hypoxia, whereas decreased blood volves the annulus and base of the leaflets without delivery to the aorta causes reduced cardiac output, hypo- commissuralfusion,thereisnoroleforpercutaneous tension, or even shock. The rapid systolic rise in LA mitral balloon or surgical commissurotomy. Second, the pressure with a concomitant fall in LV systolic pressure presence of severe mitral annular calcification can be quite limits the pressure gradient driving MR to early systole. challenging for the surgeon because it causes problems in Thus, the murmur may be short and unimpressive. Some securely attaching the prosthetic valve and narrowing of patients with severe torrential MR have no murmur due to the orifice. Supra-annular insertion and other innovative equalization of the LV and left atrial pressures. TTE can techniques can be used, such as placement of a felt patch usually clarify the diagnosis by demonstrating the presence around the valve orifice to anchor the prosthesis; how- of severe MR, the mechanism causing MR, and a hyper- ever, this only works if the mitral orifice is adequate. If dynamic instead of a depressed left ventricle as would be the annular calcification narrows the orifice, it has to be present in many other causes of hemodynamic compro- debrided. The other alternative is left atrial to ventricular mise. Likely mechanisms of acute MR detected by TTE bypass with a valved conduit in extreme cases of calcifi- include valve disruption or perforation from IE, chordal cation both of the leaflet and the annulus. Finally, pa- rupture, and/or papillary muscle rupture. If the diagnosis tients with calcification are often elderly and debilitated, of IE as the cause of acute MR is made, therapy that in- have multiple comorbidities, and are at high risk for cludes antibiotic administration and early surgery must be surgery. For these reasons, intervention should be delayed considered. until symptoms are severely limiting and cannot be It may be difficult to diagnose severe acute MR with managed with diuresis and heart rate control. TTE due to narrow eccentric jets of MR, tachycardia, and A subset of patients have mitral inflow obstruction due early equalization of LV and LA pressures. In cases where to other causes, such as congenital malformations, tumors, TTE is nondiagnostic but the suspicion of severe acute or other masses. Congenital MS usually takes the form of a MR persists, enhanced mitral valve imaging with TEE parachute mitral valve, where the mitral chordae are usually clarifies the diagnosis. TEE can be especially attached to a single or dominant papillary muscle and often helpful in detecting valvular vegetations and annular ab- form a component of the Shone complex, which can scesses that may further accentuate the need for a more include supramitral rings, valvular or subvalvular AS, and urgent surgical approach. In the presence of sudden acute aortic coarctation. For MS caused by tumors or other and hemodynamic instability after MI with hyperdynamic obstructive lesions, intervention is aimed at reducing or LV function by TTE and no other cause for the deterio- removing the mass, with efforts made to preserve the valve. ration, TEE should be performed as soon as possible, Supporting References: (338–352) looking for severe MR due either to a papillary muscle or chordal rupture. 7. Mitral Regurgitation 7.1.2. Medical Therapy Vasodilator therapy can be useful to improve hemody- 7.1. Acute MR namic compensation in acute MR. The premise of use of Acute MR may be due to disruption of different parts of vasodilators in acute MR is reduction of impedance of the mitral valve apparatus. IE may cause leaflet perforation aortic flow, thereby preferentially guiding flow away from or chordal rupture. Spontaneous chordal rupture may occur the left ventricle to the left atrial regurgitant pathway, in patients with degenerative mitral valve disease. Rupture decreasing MR while simultaneously increasing forward of the papillary muscle occurs in patients who have an acute output. This is usually accomplished by infusion of an ST-segment elevation MI usually associated with an easily titratable agent such as sodium nitroprusside or inferior infarction. The acute volume overload on the left nicardipine. Use of vasodilators is often limited by systemic ventricle and LA results in pulmonary congestion and low hypotension that is exacerbated when peripheral resistance forward cardiac output. Diagnosis of the presence and is decreased. etiology of acute MR and urgent intervention may be Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can be helpful lifesaving. to treat acute severe MR. By lowering systolic aortic pressure, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation decreases 7.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up LV afterload, increasing forward output while decreasing TTE is useful in patients with severe acute primary MR for regurgitant volume. Simultaneously, intra-aortic balloon evaluation of LV function, RV function, pulmonary artery counterpulsation increases diastolic and mean aortic pres- pressure, and mechanism of MR. The patient with severe sure, thereby supporting the systemic circulation. In almost acute MR, which might occur from chordal rupture, usu- every case, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is a ally experiences acute decompensation with hemodynamic temporizing measure for achieving hemodynamic stability embarrassment. The sudden volume overload increases left until definitive mitral surgery can be performed. The use e98 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 of a percutaneous circulatory assist device may also be In chronic secondary MR, the mitral valve is usually effective to stabilize a patient with acute hemodynamic normal (Table 16). Instead, severe LV dysfunction is compromise before operation. caused either by CAD, related MI (ischemic chronic Supporting References: (353,354) secondary MR), or idiopathic myocardial disease (non- ischemic chronic secondary MR). The abnormal and 7.1.3. Intervention dilated left ventricle causes papillary muscle displacement, Prompt mitral valve surgery is recommended for treatment whichinturnresultsinleaflet tethering with associated of the symptomatic patient with acute severe primary MR. annular dilation that prevents coaptation. Because MR is The severity of acute primary MR is variable, and some only 1 component of the disease (severe LV dysfunction, patients with more moderate amounts of MR may develop coronary disease, or idiopathic myocardial disease are the compensation as LV dilation allows for lower filling others), restoration of mitral valve competence is not by pressure and increased forward cardiac output. However, itself curative; thus, the best therapy for chronic secondary most patients with acute severe MR will require surgical MR is much less clear than it is for chronic primary MR. correction for re-establishment of normal hemodynamics The data are limited, and there is greater difficulty in and for relief of symptoms. This is especially true for a defining the severity of MR in patients with secondary MR complete papillary muscle rupture that causes torrential than in those with primary MR. In patients with secondary MR, which is poorly tolerated. Even if there is a partial MR, adverse outcomes are associated with a smaller papillary muscle rupture with hemodynamic stability, ur- calculated effective regurgitant orifice compared to pri- gent surgery is indicated because this can suddenly progress mary MR due to multiple reasons. The MR will likely to complete papillary muscle rupture. In cases of ruptured progress because of the associated progressive LV systolic chordae tendineae, mitral repair is usually feasible and dysfunction and adverse remodeling. In addition, there is preferred over MVR, and the timing of surgery can be an underestimation of effective regurgitant orifice area by determined by the patient’s hemodynamic status. If IE is the 2D echocardiography derived flow convergence the cause of severe symptomatic MR, earlier surgery is method due to the crescentic shape of the regurgitant generally preferred because of better outcomes over medical orifice. There are the additional clinical effects of a therapy. However, this strategy should also be tempered smaller amount of regurgitation in the presence of by the patient’s overall condition. compromised LV systolic function and baseline elevated Supporting Reference: (355) filling pressures.
7.2. Stages of Chronic MR 7.3. Chronic Primary MR In assessing the patient with chronic MR, it is critical to 7.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up distinguish between chronic primary (degenerative) MR d and chronic secondary (functional) MR, as these 2 condi- 7.3.1.1. DIAGNOSTIC TESTING INITIAL DIAGNOSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS tions have more differences than similarities. CLASS I In chronic primary MR, the pathology of 1 of the 1. TTE is indicated for baseline evaluation of LV size and function, components of the valve (leaflets, chordae tendineae, RV function and left atrial size, pulmonary artery pressure, and papillary muscles, annulus) causes valve incompetence mechanism and severity of primary MR (stages A to D) in any patient suspected of having chronic primary MR (5,21,39, with systolic regurgitation of blood from the left ventricle 356–371). (Level of Evidence: B) to the LA (Table 15). The most common cause of chronic primary MR in developed countries is mitral valve Images provided by TTE generate most of the diag- prolapse, which has a wide spectrum of etiology and nostic data needed for clinical decision making in chronic presentation. Younger populations present with severe primary MR. The outcome of the patient with chronic myxomatous degeneration with gross redundancy of both primary MR is determined by lesion severity and the anterior and posterior leaflets and the chordal apparatus presence or absence of negative prognostic features that (Barlow’s valve). Alternatively, older populations present include the presence of symptoms, onset of LV dysfunc- with fibroelastic deficiency disease, in which lack of con- tion, and presence of pulmonary hypertension; usually only nective tissue leads to chordal rupture. The differentiation severe MR leads to these negative sequelae. Favorable between these 2 etiologies has important implications for loading conditions in MR (increased preload and usually operative intervention. Other less common causes of normal afterload) increase ejection phase indexes of LV chronic primary MR include IE, connective tissue disor- function, such as LVEF, but do not affect the extent of ders, rheumatic heart disease, cleft mitral valve, and radi- shortening. Thus, a “normal” LVEF in MR is approxi- ation heart disease. If the subsequent volume overload of mately 70%. In turn, the onset of LV dysfunction is chronic primary MR is prolonged and severe, it causes inferred when LVEF declines toward 60% or when the left myocardial damage, HF, and eventual death. Correction of ventricle is unable to contract to <40 mm diameter at end the MR is curative. Thus, MR is “the disease.” systole. It is clear that properly obtained and validated JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e99 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 15. Stages of Primary MR
Grade Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics* Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms A At risk of MR Mild mitral valve prolapse No MR jet or small central jet None None with normal coaptation area <20% LA on Doppler Mild valve thickening and Small vena contracta <0.3 cm leaflet restriction B Progressive MR Severe mitral valve prolapse Central jet MR 20%–40% LA or Mild LA enlargement None with normal coaptation late systolic eccentric jet MR No LV enlargement Rheumatic valve changes Vena contracta <0.7 cm Normal pulmonary pressure with leaflet restriction and Regurgitant volume <60 mL loss of central coaptation Regurgitant fraction <50% Prior IE ERO <0.40 cm2 Angiographic grade 1–2þ C Asymptomatic severe MR Severe mitral valve prolapse Central jet MR >40% LA or Moderate or severe None with loss of coaptation or holosystolic eccentric jet MR LA enlargement flail leaflet Vena contracta 0.7 cm LV enlargement Rheumatic valve changes Regurgitant volume 60 mL Pulmonary hypertension may with leaflet restriction and Regurgitant fraction 50% be present at rest or with exercise loss of central coaptation ERO 0.40 cm2 C1: LVEF >60% and LVESD Prior IE Angiographic grade 3–4þ <40 mm Thickening of leaflets with C2: LVEF 60% and LVESD radiation heart disease 40 mm D Symptomatic severe MR Severe mitral valve prolapse Central jet MR >40% LA or Moderate or severe LA Decreased exercise with loss of coaptation or holosystolic eccentric jet MR enlargement tolerance flail leaflet Vena contracta 0.7 cm LV enlargement Exertional dyspnea Rheumatic valve changes Regurgitant volume 60 mL Pulmonary hypertension present with leaflet restriction and Regurgitant fraction 50% loss of central coaptation ERO 0.40 cm2 Prior IE Angiographic grade 3–4þ Thickening of leaflets with radiation heart disease *Several valve hemodynamic criteria are provided for assessment of MR severity, but not all criteria for each category will be present in each patient. Categorization of MR severity as mild, moderate, or severe depends on data quality and integration of these parameters in conjunction with other clinical evidence. ERO indicates effective regurgitant orifice; IE, infective endocarditis; LA, left atrium/atrial; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD; left ventricular end-systolic dimension; and MR, mitral regurgitation. chamber volumes give more information about detri- MR and LV dysfunction, the patient should be considered mental cardiac remodeling than simple chamber di- for mitral valve surgery. TTE serves to give this infor- mensions, as suggested by angiographically obtained mation in most cases and also generates baseline data that volume data. These techniques have been replaced by canbeusedtocomparethepatient’s progress on subse- newer noninvasive imaging techniques, which initially quent examinations. Three-dimensional echocardiogra- used chamber dimensions for measurement of LV size and phy, strain imaging, or CMR may add more accurate function. Until more prognostic volumetric data are assessment of the LV response in the future. Symptom available, most current prognostic data rely on chamber presence is a key determinant of outcome, yet symptom dimensions. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure approach- status is highly subjective. Studies have demonstrated a ing 50 mm Hg also worsens prognosis. Thus, when the correlation between B-type natriuretic peptide and murmur of MR is first discovered, the clinician needs to outcome in MR. Although the data are preliminary, the know the severity of the MR (Table 15)andthesizeand finding of a rising B-type natriuretic peptide could be function of the left ventricle, pulmonary artery pressure, helpful as another factor in deciding the optimal timing of and valve pathoanatomy from which valve reparability mitral surgery. can be predicted. Determination of the severity of MR Supporting References: (5,21,39,356–371) should be made on the basis of measurements of effective orifice area, regurgitant volume, and regurgitant fraction CLASS I 2. CMR is indicated in patients with chronic primary MR to assess using the proximal isovelocity surface area or quantitative fl LV and RV volumes, function, or MR severity and when these Doppler ow measurements. However, there are limita- issues are not satisfactorily addressed by TTE (366,372,373). tions to this technique, and multiple Doppler parameters, (Level of Evidence: B) including color jet area, vena contracta, continuous wave Doppler intensity, and transmitral jet velocity curve should In most cases, TTE provides the data needed for be used to correlate with the quantitative measurements. adequate evaluation of the MR patient. However, in cases Once 1 of the above “triggers” is reached, indicating severe where TTE image quality is poor, CMR may be of value in e100 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 16. Stages of Secondary MR
Grade Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics* Associated Cardiac Findings Symptoms A At risk of MR Normal valve leaflets, chords, No MR jet or small central jet Normal or mildly dilated LV Symptoms due to coronary and annulus in a patient area <20% LA on Doppler size with fixed (infarction) or ischemia or HF may be with coronary disease or Small vena contracta inducible (ischemia) regional present that respond to cardiomyopathy <0.30 cm wall motion abnormalities revascularization and Primary myocardial disease appropriate medical therapy with LV dilation and systolic dysfunction B Progressive MR Regional wall motion abnor- ERO <0.20 cm2y Regional wall motion abnor- Symptoms due to coronary malities with mild tethering Regurgitant volume <30 mL malities with reduced LV ischemia or HF may be of mitral leaflet Regurgitant fraction <50% systolic function present that respond to Annular dilation with mild LV dilation and systolic revascularization and loss of central coaptation of dysfunction due to primary appropriate medical therapy the mitral leaflets myocardial disease C Asymptomatic Regional wall motion abnor- ERO 0.20 cm2y Regional wall motion abnor- Symptoms due to coronary severe MR malities and/or LV dilation Regurgitant volume 30 mL malities with reduced LV ischemia or HF may be with severe tethering of Regurgitant fraction 50% systolic function present that respond to mitral leaflet LV dilation and systolic revascularization and Annular dilation with severe dysfunction due to primary appropriate medical therapy loss of central coaptation of myocardial disease the mitral leaflets D Symptomatic Regional wall motion abnor- ERO 0.20 cm2y Regional wall motion abnor- HF symptoms due to MR severe MR malities and/or LV dilation Regurgitant volume 30 mL malities with reduced LV persist even after revascular- with severe tethering of Regurgitant fraction 50% systolic function ization and optimization mitral leaflet LV dilation and systolic of medical therapy Annular dilation with severe dysfunction due to primary Decreased exercise tolerance loss of central coaptation of myocardial disease Exertional dyspnea the mitral leaflets *Several valve hemodynamic criteria are provided for assessment of MR severity, but not all criteria for each category will be present in each patient. Categorization of MR severity as mild, moderate, or severe depends on data quality and integration of these parameters in conjunction with other clinical evidence. yThe measurement of the proximal isovelocity surface area by 2D TTE in patients with secondary MR underestimates the true ERO due to the crescentic shape of the proximal convergence. 2D indicates 2-dimensional; ERO, effective regurgitant orifice; HF, heart failure; LA, left atrium; LV, left ventricular; MR, mitral regurgitation; and TTE, transthoracic echocardiogram.
MR evaluation. CMR produces highly accurate data on necessitating reoperation, surgeons strive for near-perfect LV volumes, RV volumes, and LVEF, and an estimation operative repair. If MR is detected in the operating room of MR severity, but outcome data using CMR volumes following repair, it is often an indication that the repair is pending. CMR is less helpful in establishing mitral should be revised. This assessment should be made during pathoanatomy. conditions that approach those of normal physiology. The Supporting References: (366,372,373) left ventricle should be well filled and systemic BP should
CLASS I be brought well into the normal range. A low preload with 3. Intraoperative TEE is indicated to establish the anatomic basis underfilling of the left ventricle can lead to 1) systolic for chronic primary MR (stages C and D) and to guide repair anterior leaflet motion with outflow obstruction or 2) un- (374,375). (Level of Evidence: B) derestimation of degree of residual MR. Thus, information obtained by TEE when the ventricle is underfilled can lead Intraoperative TEE is a standard imaging modality for to an unneeded revision in the former case while over- the surgical therapy of MR. Before the operative incision, looking a needed revision in the latter. Intraoperative TEE TEE may give the surgeon a better understanding of the is also useful for diagnosing mitral inflow obstruction or valve anatomy and type of repair that will likely be per- LV outflow obstruction as a result of the mitral valve formed, although this decision is ultimately made when repair. the valve is inspected visually. Three-dimensional TEE Supporting References: (374,375) may be helpful in further visualizing the abnormal mitral valve anatomy. Because anesthesia lessens afterload, pre- CLASS I load, and mitral valve closing force, it is important that 4. TEE is indicated for evaluation of patients with chronic primary decisions about severity of MR not be re-evaluated under MR (stages B to D) in whom noninvasive imaging provides these artificial conditions, in which MR severity could be nondiagnostic information about severity of MR, mechanism of MR, and/or status of LV function. (Level of Evidence: C) underestimated. Intraoperative TEE is especially helpful in gauging the TEE is not recommended for routine evaluation and adequacy of repair. Because even mild residual MR follow-up of patients with chronic primary MR but is after repair increases the likelihood of later repair failure indicated in specific situations. Because TEE provides JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e101 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline excellent imaging of the mitral valve, it should be per- changes in LV function and pulmonary pressure in formed when TTE images are inadequate. TEE is espe- determining the proper timing of surgery. For patients cially useful in cases of MR due to IE, where additional approaching the above benchmarks, semiannual TTE is information about other potentially infected structures can recommended. It should be noted that echocardiographic be fully evaluated by that technique. TEE allows more measurements are variable, and management decisions that precise quantitation of regurgitant severity and provides a rest on these measurements should be confirmed by repeat better estimate of the likelihood of a successful surgical TTE if the patient is approaching or has reached the valve repair. Three-dimensional TEE may be helpful in important triggers for surgery noted above. further visualizing the abnormal mitral valve anatomy. In patients with chronic primary MR that is less than Mitral valve repair is preferable to valve replacement severe (stages A and B), TTE is indicated periodically to because of lower operative mortality and avoidance of the evaluate for changes in MR severity. MR is a progressive complications inherent to prosthetic valves that accrue over disease. The LV volume overload induced by chronic time. Thus, if repair can be accomplished, it might be primary MR causes eccentric cardiac remodeling with performed earlier in the course of disease. Alternatively, progressively increasing chamber volume, tending to if replacement is likely, strategy shifts toward performing reduce valve leaflet coaptation. Advancing valve pathology surgery later to avoid unwanted exposure time to leads to further worsening of MR. This process may prosthetic-related complications. develop slowly without dramatic changes in symptoms or 7.3.1.2. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCHANGING SIGNS OR SYMPTOMS physical examination. Thus, MR could become severe and TTE is indicated in patients with primary MR (stages B to even lead to LV dysfunction without the patient or clini- D) to evaluate the mitral valve apparatus and LV function cian being aware of it. Accordingly, periodic repeat TTE to after a change in signs or symptoms. The onset of symp- examine for changes in severity of MR and LV size and toms (dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, or declining exercise function when baseline disease is less than severe is tolerance) is by itself a negative prognostic event even if advisable. For mild MR, follow-up every 3 to 5 years is LV function is preserved. Symptoms are the culmination of adequate unless the results of the physical examination or the pathophysiology of MR and may indicate changes in symptoms change. For moderate MR, follow-up every 1 to LV diastolic function, left atrial compliance, LV filling 2 years is recommended, again unless clinical status sug- pressure and/or increases in pulmonary artery pressure, gests a worsening in severity (Table 4). and decreases in RV function or the coexistence of TR. Supporting Reference: (39) Therefore, symptoms add pathophysiological data not 7.3.1.4. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdCARDIAC CATHETERIZATION readily available from imaging. Further, there is no evi- Left ventriculography and/or hemodynamic measurements dence that treatment with diuretics or other therapies that are indicated when clinical assessment and/or noninvasive might relieve symptoms changes the prognostic effect of tests are inconclusive or discordant regarding 1) severity of symptom onset. Once symptoms have occurred, the patient MR, 2) LV function, or 3) the need for surgery. Imaging should be considered for mitral valve operation even if with these techniques is adequate for evaluation of MR in medication has led to improvement. Repeat TTE at the the majority of cases. However, invasive hemodynamic time of symptom onset is indicated to confirm that evaluation may be necessary in some cases, especially when symptoms are likely due to MR or its effect on the left there is a clinical discrepancy between symptomatic status ventricle, which in turn supports surgical correction. The and noninvasive testing. Elevated filling pressures support new onset of AF is also an indication for repeat TTE to a cardiac cause for dyspnea and/or may indicate severely look for changes in severity of MR and the status of the left abnormal pathophysiology even when the patient claims to ventricle. be asymptomatic. Conversely, a normal invasive hemody- Supporting References: (365,376) namic examination in a symptomatic patient with what 7.3.1.3. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdROUTINE FOLLOW-UP appears to be less than severe MR suggests a noncardiac TTE should be performed on an annual or semiannual cause for the symptoms. Hemodynamic evaluation can be basis for surveillance of LV function (estimated by LVEF especially helpful in patients with concomitant lung dis- and end-systolic dimension) and pulmonary artery pressure ease. Normal left atrial (or wedge) pressure and a large in asymptomatic patients with severe primary MR (stage transpulmonary gradient suggest pulmonary hypertension C1). Chronic severe MR is tolerated poorly, reaching a due to lung disease rather than mitral valve disease. Pa- trigger for surgery at an average rate of about 8% per year. tients usually complain of dyspnea with exertion, yet Because this progression varies from patient to patient and noninvasive evaluation is usually made at rest. Hemody- because prognosis worsens if correction of MR is delayed namic measurement made during either handgrip or dy- beyond the onset of these triggers, either referral to a Heart namic exercise may be very revealing. Increased load with Valve Center of Excellence for early repair or very careful exercise may bring out severely disordered hemodynamics surveillance is mandatory. If a watchful waiting approach is explaining the patient’s exercise-related symptoms. Left pursued, periodic TTE is critical to examine the patient for ventriculography may also be of diagnostic benefit. e102 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Whereas echo-Doppler interrogation of the mitral valve dysfunction, surgery is usually indicated. However, in those measures flow velocity, ventriculography uses the density of patients in whom surgery is not performed or will be contrast to determine the amount of blood flow from the delayed, medical therapy for systolic dysfunction should be left ventricle to LA. Although only semiquantitative, a implemented. Although there are sparse data available carefully performed ventriculogram can add significantly to specific to patients with MR with LV dysfunction, it seems the diagnostic data pool. reasonable to treat such patients with the standard regimen Supporting Reference: (42) for HF, including beta-adrenergic blockade, ACE in-
7.3.1.5. DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGdEXERCISE TESTING: RECOMMENDATIONS hibitors or ARBs, and possibly aldosterone antagonists. Perhaps the best data exist for the use of beta blockers, CLASS IIa which reverse LV dysfunction in experimental MR. Pa- 1. Exercise hemodynamics with either Doppler echocardiography tients who are receiving beta blockers may have better or cardiac catheterization is reasonable in symptomatic pa- tients with chronic primary MR where there is a discrepancy surgical outcomes and delayed onset of LV dysfunction between symptoms and the severity of MR at rest (stages B compared with those not taking these medications. ACE and C) (377,378). (Level of Evidence: B) inhibition has not been effective in experimental MR with LV dysfunction but has caused reverse remodeling in a The symptoms of chronic primary MR usually occur study with a small number of patients. Because aldosterone during exercise. Thus, evaluation during exercise may be antagonism is thought to work in part by inhibiting very informative when resting TTE and symptomatic fibrosis, its role in MR where little fibrosis occurs is status are discordant or when the magnitude of LV and LA unclear. enlargement seem out of proportion to the severity of Supporting References: (382–386) resting MR. In such cases, severity of MR and/or pul- monary artery pressure may increase during exercise, both CLASS III: No Benefit 1. Vasodilator therapy is not indicated for normotensive helping to explain exercise-induced symptoms and indi- asymptomatic patients with chronic primary MR (stages B cating that mitral surgery may be in order. The change in and C1) and normal systolic LV function (386–391). (Level of pulmonary artery wedge pressure and LV diastolic pressure Evidence: B) during exercise can be obtained during cardiac catheteri- zation, which may further aid in determining the etiology Because vasodilator therapy appears to be effective in of symptoms. acute severe symptomatic MR, it seems reasonable to Supporting References: (42,377,378) attempt afterload reduction in chronic asymptomatic MR with normal LV function in an effort to forestall the need CLASS IIa 2. Exercise treadmill testing can be useful in patients with chronic for surgery. However, the results from the limited number primary MR to establish symptom status and exercise tolerance of trials addressing this therapy have been disappointing, (stages B and C). (Level of Evidence: C) demonstrating little or no clinically important benefit. Conversely, because vasodilators decrease LV size and The onset of symptoms represents a key development in mitral closing force, they may increase mitral valve pro- severe MR. However, some patients may not recognize lapse, worsening rather than decreasing severity of MR. their symptoms, may deny them, or may alter their lifestyle The foregoing does not apply to patients with concomitant to remain asymptomatic. A formal treadmill exercise test hypertension. Hypertension must be treated because of the can establish true exercise tolerance and can also form the well-known morbidity and mortality associated with that baseline for future symptom assessment. Additional in- condition and because increased LV systolic pressure by formation about a cardiac or noncardiac limitation can be itself increases the systolic transmitral gradient and worsens obtained using oxygen consumption measurements during severity of MR. exercise. Exercise echocardiography may add additional Supporting References: (386–391) prognostic value beyond conventional exercise treadmill testing in patients with asymptomatic moderate or severe 7.3.3. Intervention: Recommendations chronic primary MR. Supporting References: (378–381) See Table 17 for a summary of recommendations from this section. Intervention for patients with primary MR consists of 7.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations either surgical mitral valve repair or MVR. Mitral valve CLASS IIa repair is preferred over MVR if a successful and durable 1. Medical therapy for systolic dysfunction is reasonable in repair can be achieved. Repair success is dependent on the symptomatic patients with chronic primary MR (stage D) and mitral valve morphology as well as surgical expertise. LVEF less than 60% in whom surgery is not contemplated (382– Percutaneous mitral valve repair provides a less invasive 386). (Level of Evidence: B) alternative to surgery but is not approved for clinical use in Patients with MR and LV dysfunction experience the United States. myocardial damage and HF. With onset of LV systolic Supporting Reference: (426) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e103 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 17. Summary of Recommendations for Chronic Primary MR
Recommendations COR LOE References MV surgery is recommended for symptomatic patients with chronic severe primary MR (stage D) and IB(365,376) LVEF >30% MV surgery is recommended for asymptomatic patients with chronic severe primary MR and LV IB(359–362, dysfunction (LVEF 30%–60% and/or LVESD 40 mm, stage C2) 392–394) MV repair is recommended in preference to MVR when surgical treatment is indicated for patients IB(87,364, with chronic severe primary MR limited to the posterior leaflet 395–409) MV repair is recommended in preference to MVR when surgical treatment is indicated for patients IB(86,407–413) with chronic severe primary MR involving the anterior leaflet or both leaflets when a successful and durable repair can be accomplished Concomitant MV repair or replacement is indicated in patients with chronic severe primary MR IB(414) undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications MV repair is reasonable in asymptomatic patients with chronic severe primary MR (stage C1) with IIa B (39,86, preserved LV function (LVEF >60% and LVESD <40 mm) in whom the likelihood of a successful 415–419) and durable repair without residual MR is >95% with an expected mortality rate of <1% when performed at a Heart Valve Center of Excellence MV repair is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with chronic severe nonrheumatic primary MR IIa B (363,415, (stage C1) and preserved LV function in whom there is a high likelihood of a successful and durable 420–425) repair with 1) new onset of AF or 2) resting pulmonary hypertension (PA systolic arterial pressure >50 mm Hg) Concomitant MV repair is reasonable in patients with chronic moderate primary MR (stage B) IIa C N/A undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications MV surgery may be considered in symptomatic patients with chronic severe primary MR and IIb C N/A LVEF 30% (stage D) MV repair may be considered in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease when surgical treatment is IIb B (86,406,413) indicated if a durable and successful repair is likely or if the reliability of long-term anticoagulation management is questionable Transcatheter MV repair may be considered for severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III/IV) with IIb B (426) chronic severe primary MR (stage D) who have a reasonable life expectancy but a prohibitive surgical risk because of severe comorbidities MVR should not be performed for treatment of isolated severe primary MR limited to less than one III: Harm B (87,407–409) half of the posterior leaflet unless MV repair has been attempted and was unsuccessful
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; MR, mitral regurgitation; MV, mitral valve; MVR, mitral valve replacement; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; and PA, pulmonary artery.
CLASS I before severe dysfunction has occurred. If moderate LV 1. Mitral valve surgery is recommended for symptomatic patients dysfunction is already present, prognosis is reduced with chronic severe primary MR (stage D) and LVEF greater following mitral valve operation. Thus, further delay (even (Level of Evidence: B) than 30% (365,376). though symptoms are absent) will lead to greater LV Primary MR is a mechanical problem of the leaflets that dysfunction and a still worse prognosis. Because the loading has only a mechanical solutiondthat of mitral valve sur- conditions in MR allow continued late ejection into a “ ” gery. The onset of symptoms that results from severe MR lower-impedance LA, a higher cutoff for normal LVEF is worsens prognosis even when LV function appears to be used in MR than in other types of heart disease. Although ’ normal, and negative prognosis extends even to mild it is clearly inadvisable to allow patients LV function to symptoms. Thus, the onset of symptoms is an indication deteriorate beyond the benchmarks of an LVEF 60% for prompt mitral valve surgery. and/or LVESD 40 mm, some recovery of LV function Supporting References: (365,376) can still occur even if these thresholds have been crossed. Supporting References: (359–362,392–394) CLASS I 2. Mitral valve surgery is recommended for asymptomatic patients CLASS I with chronic severe primary MR and LV dysfunction (LVEF 30% 3. Mitral valve repair is recommended in preference to MVR when to 60% and/or LVESD ‡40 mm, stage C2) (359–362,392–394). surgical treatment is indicated for patients with chronic severe (Level of Evidence: B) primary MR limited to the posterior leaflet (87,364,395–409). (Level of Evidence: B) The goal of therapy in MR is to correct it before the onset of LV systolic dysfunction and the subsequent adverse Mitral competence is only 1 function of the mitral valve effect on patient outcomes. Ideally, mitral valve surgery apparatus. The mitral valve apparatus is an integral part of should be performed when the patient’s left ventricle ap- the left ventricle. It aids in LV contraction and helps proaches but has not yet reached the parameters that indi- maintain the efficient prolate ellipsoid shape of the left cate systolic dysfunction (LVEF 60% or LVESD 40 ventricle. Destruction of the mitral apparatus causes im- mm). Because symptoms do not always coincide with LV mediate LV dysfunction. Mitral valve repair is favored over dysfunction, imaging surveillance is used to plan surgery MVR for 3 reasons: e104 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
1. Mitral valve repair is performed at a lower operative attempted if possible with other causes of severe MR, such mortality rate than MVR. Although no RCTs exist, as papillary muscle rupture, IE, and cleft mitral valve. As virtually every clinical report, including data from the the repair becomes more complex, however, results of very STS database, indicates that operative risk (30–day complex repair in younger patients may be matched by mortality) for repair is about half that of MVR. results of durable mechanical MVR with careful manage- 2. LV function is better preserved following repair ment of anticoagulation. preserving the integrity of the mitral valve apparatus More complex repair is not well standardized and is versus following MVR. more surgically demanding. The Heart Valve Team should 3. Repair avoids the risks inherent to prosthetic heart assign complex repairs to more experienced mitral valve valves, that is, thromboembolism or anticoagulant- surgeons with established outcomes, including acute suc- induced hemorrhage for mechanical valves or struc- cess rate as well as long-term durability. The probability of tural deterioration for bioprosthetic valves. mitral valve repair rather than MVR correlates with surgeon-specific mitral volumes. In a 2007 analysis, hos- Because the success of repair increases with surgical pitals that performed <36 mitral operations per year had a volume and expertise, repair (which is the preferred treat- 48% repair rate, whereas hospitals that performed >140 ment) is more likely to be accomplished in centers with mitral operations per year had a 77% repair rate. Hospital surgeons who have expertise in this type of surgery. Mitral mortality was also 50% lower, on average, in the highest- valve repair over MVR is indicated even in patients >65 volume hospitals. There was, however, considerable years of age. When in doubt, MVR is preferable to a poor overlap in specific hospital outcomes, with >25% of low- repair. The results of a minimally invasive approach per- volume hospitals outperforming the median high-volume formed via minithoracotomy/port access using direct hospitals. This overlap suggests that hospital or surgeon- vision, thoracoscopic, or robotic assistance versus a con- specific volumes should not be used as a surrogate for ventional sternotomy approach may be similar when per- actual surgeon-specific repair rates and outcomes. formed by highly experienced surgeons. Supporting References: (86,407–413) Surgical repair of MR has been remarkably successful in the treatment of primary MR. When leaflet dysfunction is CLASS I sufficiently limited so that only annuloplasty and repair of 5. Concomitant mitral valve repair or MVR is indicated in patients the posterior leaflet are necessary, repair of isolated with chronic severe primary MR undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications (414). (Level of Evidence: B) degenerative mitral disease has led to outcomes distinctly superior to biological or mechanical valve replacement: an During coronary revascularization and in cases of IE or operative mortality of <1%; long-term survival equivalent other conditions where multiple valves may be involved, it to that of the age-matched general population; approxi- is prudent to correct severe primary MR at the time of mately 95% freedom from reoperation; and >80% freedom surgery. This is especially true when mitral repair can be from recurrent moderate or severe ( 3þ)MRat15to20 performed in conjunction with AVR because operative risk years after operation. As much as one half of the posterior is lower than that of double valve replacement. leaflet may be excised, plicated, or resuspended. Posterior Supporting Reference: (414) fl fi lea et repair has become suf ciently standardized so that CLASS IIa valve repair rather than valve replacement is the standard of 1. Mitral valve repair is reasonable in asymptomatic patients with care in this situation. Execution of this procedure with a chronic severe primary MR (stage C1) with preserved LV func- success rate 90% should be the expectation of every tion (LVEF >60% and LVESD <40 mm) in whom the likelihood of cardiac surgeon who performs mitral valve procedures. a successful and durable repair without residual MR is greater Supporting References: (87,364,395–409,427–432) than 95% with an expected mortality rate of less than 1% when performed at a Heart Valve Center of Excellence (39,86,415– CLASS I 419). (Level of Evidence: B) 4. Mitral valve repair is recommended in preference to MVR when surgical treatment is indicated for patients with chronic severe The onset of symptoms, LV dysfunction, or pulmonary primary MR involving the anterior leaflet or both leaflets when a hypertension worsens the prognosis for MR. Careful – successful and durable repair can be accomplished (86,407 intensive surveillance may result in timing of valve surgery (Level of Evidence: B) 413). before these negative sequelae occur. However, an attrac- Degenerative mitral valve disease consisting of more tive alternative strategy for treating severe chronic primary than posterior leaflet disease requires a more complex and MR is to perform early mitral repair before these triggers extensive repair. When the anterior leaflet or both leaflets are reached. Early mitral repair avoids the need for require repair, durability of the repair is less certain, with a intensive surveillance and also obviates the possibility that freedom from reoperation of approximately 80% and a patients might become lost to follow-up or delay seeing freedom from recurrent moderate or severe MR of 60% at their clinician until advanced LV dysfunction has already 15 to 20 years. These results are superior to the results of ensued. This strategy requires expertise in clinical evalua- MVR, even in elderly patients. Repair should also be tion and cardiac imaging to ensure that MR is severe. For JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e105 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline this strategy to be effective, a durable repair must be pro- increased operative mortality might not be justified in vided. An unwanted valve replacement, exposing the pa- treating moderate MR. tient to the unneeded risks accrued from prosthetic valve Supporting Reference: (433) replacement, or a repair that fails, necessitating reopera- tion, should be considered complications of this approach. CLASS IIb Thus, there must be a high degree of certainty that a du- 1. Mitral valve surgery may be considered in symptomatic patients with chronic severe primary MR and LVEF less than or equal to rable repair can be performed. In this regard, posterior 30% (stage D). (Level of Evidence: C) leaflet repair is usually more durable than anterior leaflet repair, especially in less experienced hands, and high sur- Most patients with decompensated MR and an gical volume is also associated with better repair rates and LVEF 30% have secondary rather than primary MR. more durable outcomes. These operations on the asymp- However in the rare cases where valve pathology indicates a tomatic patient should be performed in Heart Valve clear primary cause in a patient with far-advanced LV Centers of Excellence by experienced surgeons with dysfunction, surgery might be beneficial, especially in pa- expertise in mitral valve repair. When performed by tients without severe comorbidities. Repair seems reason- experienced surgeons in a Heart Valve Center of Excel- able in such patients because of the likelihood of continued lence, there is a lower risk of patients developing HF and deterioration in LV function if surgery is not performed. lower mortality rates in patients with severe MR from flail However, data regarding surgery in patients with primary leaflets who undergo early operation as opposed to MR and a low LVEF are lacking. watchful waiting. – CLASS IIb Supporting References: (39,86,415 419) 2. Mitral valve repair may be considered in patients with rheumatic
CLASS IIa mitral valve disease when surgical treatment is indicated if a 2. Mitral valve repair is reasonable for asymptomatic patients with durable and successful repair is likely or when the reliability of chronic severe nonrheumatic primary MR (stage C1) and pre- long-term anticoagulation management is questionable (Level of Evidence: B) served LV function (LVEF >60% and LVESD <40 mm) in whom (86,406,413). there is a high likelihood of a successful and durable repair with Rheumatic mitral valve disease is less suitable for mitral 1) new onset of AF or 2) resting pulmonary hypertension (pul- > repair than complex degenerative disease. Durability of the monary artery systolic arterial pressure 50 mm Hg) fi fl (363,415,420–425). (Level of Evidence: B) repair is limited by thickened or calci ed lea ets, extensive subvalvular disease with chordal fusion and shortening, and In nonrheumatic MR, the onset of AF is in part due to progression of rheumatic disease. Freedom from reopera- enlarging left atrial size, and its presence worsens surgical tion at 20 years, even in experienced hands, is in the 50% outcome. Furthermore, the longer AF is present, the more to 60% range. In a large series from Korea, repair was likely it is to persist. Thus, it may be reasonable to restore accomplished in 22% of patients operated on for rheumatic mitral competence by low-risk repair with the hope that disease. One third of these patients who underwent repair the ensuing reduction in left atrial size will help restore and had significant stenosis or regurgitation at 10 years. Repair maintain sinus rhythm. However, restoration of sinus of rheumatic mitral valve disease should be limited to pa- rhythm following valve surgery is uncertain, and concom- tients with less advanced disease in whom a durable repair itant AF ablation surgery may be warranted (Section can be accomplished or to patients in whom a mechan- 14.2.2). This strategy does not apply to rheumatic MR, ical prosthesis cannot be used because of anticoagulation fl where active atrial in ammation may make restoration of management concerns. sinus rhythm less likely and valve scarring reduces the Supporting References: (434,435) likelihood of a successful repair. The presence of pulmo- CLASS IIb nary arterial hypertension due to MR is associated with 3. Transcatheter mitral valve repair may be considered for severely poorer outcome after valve surgery. Thus, it is reasonable to symptomatic patients (NYHA class III to IV) with chronic severe consider surgery in these patients if there is a high likeli- primary MR (stage D) who have favorable anatomy for the repair hood of a successful and durable repair. procedure and a reasonable life expectancy but who have a Supporting References: (363,420–425) prohibitive surgical risk because of severe comorbidities and remain severely symptomatic despite optimal GDMT for HF CLASS IIa (426). (Level of Evidence: B) 3. Concomitant mitral valve repair is reasonable in patients with chronic moderate primary MR (stage B) when undergoing car- An RCT of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the diac surgery for other indications. (Level of Evidence: C) MitraClip device versus surgical mitral repair was con- Because MR is a progressive lesion, it is reasonable to ducted in the United States. The clip was found to be safe address it at the time of other cardiac surgery. This is but less effective than surgical repair because residual MR especially true if the mitral valve can be repaired. However, was more prevalent in the percutaneous group. However, the added risk of mitral valve surgery must be weighed the clip reduced severity of MR, improved symptoms, and against the potential for progression of MR. In such cases, led to reverse LV remodeling. Percutaneous mitral valve e106 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 repair should only be considered for patients with chronic CLASS I primary MR who remain severely symptomatic with 2. Noninvasive imaging (stress nuclear/positron emission tomog- NYHA class III to IV HF symptoms despite optimal raphy, CMR, or stress echocardiography), cardiac CT angiog- GDMT for HF and who are considered inoperable. raphy, or cardiac catheterization, including coronary arteriography, is useful to establish etiology of chronic sec- Supporting References: (426,436,437) ondary MR (stages B to D) and/or to assess myocardial CLASS III: Harm viability, which in turn may influence management of functional 1. MVR should not be performed for the treatment of isolated se- MR. (Level of Evidence: C) vere primary MR limited to less than one half of the posterior leaflet unless mitral valve repair has been attempted and was Prognosis is poor for both ischemic and nonischemic unsuccessful (87,407–409). (Level of Evidence: B) MR, but ischemic MR lends itself to the possibility of Surgical repair of MR has been remarkably successful, revascularization and potential improvement in LV func- particularly in the treatment of chronic primary MR. tion if CAD has led to large areas of hibernating viable fl myocardium. CT angiography is usually adequate to rule Repair of isolated degenerative mitral disease, when lea et fi dysfunction is sufficiently limited that only annuloplasty out signi cant CAD and thus rule out ischemic MR. If and repair of the posterior leaflet are necessary, has led to CAD is detected and noninvasive testing demonstrates outcomes distinctly superior to biological or mechanical areas of viability, coronary arteriography is pursued to fi MVR: operative mortality of <1%; long-term survival better de ne the anatomy for potential revascularization. equivalent to that of age-matched general population; Supporting Reference: (440) approximately 95% freedom from reoperation; and >80% 7.4.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations freedom from recurrent moderate or severe ( 3þ)MRat CLASS I 15 to 20 years after operation. As much as one half of the 1. Patients with chronic secondary MR (stages B to D) and HF fl posterior lea et may be excised, plicated, or resuspended. with reduced LVEF should receive standard GDMT therapy for Posterior leaflet repair has become sufficiently standardized HF, including ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, and/or in this situation that repair rather than MVR is the stan- aldosterone antagonists as indicated (310,441–445). (Level of dard of care. Execution of this procedure with a success Evidence: A) rate 90% should be the expectation of every cardiac surgeon who performs mitral valve procedures. Chronic secondary MR usually develops as a result of Supporting References: (87,407–409) severe LV dysfunction. Thus, standard GDMT for HF See Online Data Supplements 16 and 17 for more infor- forms the mainstay of therapy. Diuretics, beta blockers, mation on intervention. ACE inhibition or ARBs, and aldosterone antagonists help improve symptoms and/or prolong life in HF in general and probably do so even when HF is complicated 7.4. Chronic Secondary MR by chronic secondary MR. – 7.4.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations Supporting References: (310,441 445)
CLASS I CLASS I 1. TTE is useful to establish the etiology of chronic secondary MR 2. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular pacing is (stages B to D) and the extent and location of wall motion recommended for symptomatic patients with chronic severe abnormalities and to assess global LV function, severity of MR, secondary MR (stages B to D) who meet the indications for de- (Level of Evidence: A) and magnitude of pulmonary hypertension. (Level of Evidence: C) vice therapy (446,447). In general, the presence of chronic secondary MR Wall motion abnormalities are a common cause of worsens the prognosis of patients with LV systolic chronic secondary MR, and their presence worsens the dysfunction and symptoms of HF, and most patients with condition. The presence of conduction system abnormal- secondary MR have severe global LV dysfunction. How- ities, especially left bundle-branch block, causes disordered ever, in some patients, a limited but strategically placed LV contraction that exacerbates or is the primary cause of wall motion abnormality may also cause chronic secondary wall motion abnormalities. Electrical resynchronization MR, and prognosis may be better in such patients. An may reduce or even eliminate wall motion abnormalities. initial TTE helps establish the cause of chronic secondary Cardiac resynchronization therapy may also improve LV MR and also serves as a baseline for future comparisons. In function and mitral valve closing force, which in turn leads patients with secondary MR, outcome studies have shown to a reduction in chronic secondary MR in some cases. poorer prognosis with effective regurgitant orifice 20 Thus, cardiac resynchronization therapy should be consid- mm2. It is recognized that there is difficulty assessing ered in symptomatic patients with chronic secondary MR secondary MR in patients with reduced LV systolic func- who meet the indications for device therapy as outlined in tion and low forward flow. the ACC/AHA guidelines for device-based therapy. Supporting References: (438,439) Supporting References: (446,447) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e107 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
7.4.3. Intervention: Recommendations MR.Furthermore,whenchronicseveresecondaryMR is addressed surgically, it is not clear that repair, so See Table 18 for a summary of recommendations for this valuable in treating primary MR, is even preferred over section and Figure 4 for indications for surgery for MR. MVR in chronic severe secondary MR. Small RCTs Chronic severe secondary MR adds volume overload to have demonstrated that mitral valve surgery reduces a decompensated left ventricle and worsens prognosis. chamber size and improves peak oxygen consumption in However, there are only sparse data to indicate that cor- chronic severe secondary MR. Deciding which patients recting MR prolongs life or even improves symptoms over with chronic severe secondary MR will benefitfrom an extended time. The benefits of performing mitral valve repair over MVR are also unclear in this subset of patients. mitral surgery awaits the results of larger RCTs. Ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy presents different challenges Percutaneous mitral valve repair provides a less invasive for mitral repair. Regurgitation is caused by annular alternative to surgery but is not approved for clinical use in dilation as well as apical and lateral displacement of the the United States. papillary muscles. New techniques have facilitated mitral Supporting References: (426,436,459) repair in this situation, but durability of the repair is CLASS IIa primarily dependent on regression or progression of 1. Mitral valve surgery is reasonable for patients with chronic se- ventricular dilation. If the heart continues to dilate, long- vere secondary MR (stages C and D) who are undergoing CABG term durability of the repair is moot; the survival of the or AVR. (Level of Evidence: C) patient is limited. There is no proof that correction of chronic secondary Supporting References: (434,435,439,448–458)
MR at the time of AVR or CABG is effective in pro- CLASS IIb longing life or relieving symptoms, but it seems wise to 2. Mitral valve repair may be considered for patients with chronic address the mitral valve during those operations. Although moderate secondary MR (stage B) who are undergoing other it may be hoped that the revascularization will recruit hi- cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) bernating myocardium and reduce chronic secondary MR Because MR tends to be a progressive disease, it may be or that LV pressure reduction from relief of AS or volume helpful to address moderate MR when other cardiac sur- reduction from relief of AR might improve chronic sec- gery is being performed. Because adding MVR to other ondary MR, such hopes may not be realized. Failing to correct chronic secondary MR may leave the patient with valve surgery increases surgical risk, it seems logical that repair would be preferred in such instances; however, there severe residual MR. are sparse data available at the time of publication to CLASS IIb support this concept. 1. Mitral valve repair or replacement may be considered for Supporting Reference: (433) severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III to IV) with chronic severe secondary MR (stage D) who have persistent See Online Data Supplement 18 for more information on symptoms despite optimal GDMT for HF (439,448–458). (Level intervention. of Evidence: B) 8. Tricuspid Valve Disease Although it is clear that chronic severe secondary MR adds to the burden of HF by imposing volume overload on an already compromised left ventricle and 8.1. Stages of TR worsens prognosis, there is remarkably little evidence Trace-to-mild degrees of TR of no physiological conse- that correcting chronic severe secondary MR prolongs quence are commonly detected on TTE in subjects with life or even improves symptoms for a prolonged period. anatomically normal valves. Primary disorders of the This paradox may result from the fact that mitral surgery tricuspid apparatus that can lead to more significant de- in ischemic MR does not prevent CAD from progress- grees of TR include rheumatic disease, prolapse, congenital ing, nor does it prevent the continued idiopathic myo- disease (Ebstein’s), IE, radiation, carcinoid, blunt chest cardial deterioration in nonischemic chronic secondary wall trauma, RV endomyocardial biopsy related trauma,
Table 18. Summary of Recommendations for Chronic Severe Secondary MR
Recommendations COR LOE References MV surgery is reasonable for patients with chronic severe secondary MR (stages C and D) who are IIa C N/A undergoing CABG or AVR MV surgery may be considered for severely symptomatic patients (NYHA class III/IV) with chronic IIb B (439,448–458) severe secondary MR (stage D) MV repair may be considered for patients with chronic moderate secondary MR (stage B) who are IIb C N/A undergoing other cardiac surgery
AVR indicates aortic valve replacement; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; MR, mitral regurgitation; MV, mitral valve; N/A, not applicable; and NYHA, New York Heart Association. e108 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Figure 4. Indications for Surgery for MR
*Mitral valve repair is preferred over MVR when possible. AF indicates atrial fibrillation; CAD, coronary artery disease; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; ERO, effective regurgitant orifice; HF, heart failure; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end-systolic dimension; MR, mitral regurgitation, MV, mitral valve; MVR, mitral valve replacement; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PASP, pulmonary artery systolic pressure; RF, regurgitant fraction; RVol, regurgitant volume; and Rx, therapy.
and intra-annular RV pacemaker or implantable 8.2. Tricuspid Regurgitation fi cardioverter-de brillator leads. Approximately 80% of See Figure 5 for indications for surgery. cases of significant TR are functional in nature and related to tricuspid annular dilation and leaflet tethering 8.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations in the setting of RV remodeling due to pressure and/or CLASS I volume overload. The tricuspid annulus is a saddle- 1. TTE is indicated to evaluate severity of TR, determine etiology, shaped ellipsoid that becomes planar and circular as it measure sizes of right-sided chambers and inferior vena cava, dilates in an anterior-posterior direction and will often assess RV systolic function, estimate pulmonary artery systolic not return to its normal size and configuration after pressure, and characterize any associated left-sided heart dis- (Level of Evidence: C) relief of RV overload. Table 19 shows the stages (A ease. through D) of primary and functional TR as defined for Most TR is clinically silent. Advanced degrees of TR other valve lesions. Severe TR (stages C and D) is may be detected on physical examination by the appearance associated with poor prognosis independent of age, LV of elevated “c-V” waves in the jugular venous pulse, a and RV function, and RV size. Patients with signs or systolic murmur at the lower sternal border that increases symptoms of right HF would fit into the stage D in intensity with inspiration, and a pulsatile liver edge. In category even if they do not meet other hemodynamic or many patients, characteristic findings in the jugular venous morphological criteria. pulse are the only clues to the presence of advanced TR, Supporting Reference: (460) because a murmur may be inaudible even with severe JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e109 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 19. Stages of TR
Valve Valve Hemodynamic Stage Definition Anatomy Hemodynamics* Consequences Symptoms A At risk of TR Primary No or trace TR None None or in relation to other Mild rheumatic change left heart or pulmonary/ Mild prolapse pulmonary vascular disease Other (e.g., IE with vegetation, early carcinoid deposition, radiation) Intra-annular RV pacemaker or ICD lead Postcardiac transplant (biopsy related) Functional Normal Early annular dilation B Progressive TR Primary Mild TR Mild TR None or in relation to other Progressive leaflet Central jet area <5.0 cm2 RV/RA/IVC size normal left heart or pulmonary/ deterioration/destruction Vena contracta width not Moderate TR pulmonary vascular disease Moderate-to-severe defined No RV enlargement prolapse, limited CW jet density and contour: No or mild RA enlargement chordal rupture soft and parabolic No or mild IVC enlargement Functional Hepatic vein flow: systolic with normal respirophasic Early annular dilation dominance variation fl Moderate lea et tethering Moderate TR Normal RA pressure Central jet area 5–10 cm2 Vena contracta width not defined but <0.70 cm CW jet density and contour: dense, variable contour Hepatic vein flow: systolic blunting C Asymptomatic, Primary Central jet area >10.0 cm2 RV/RA/IVC dilated with None, or in relation to other Flail or grossly distorted severe TR Vena contracta width decreased IVC respirophasic left heart or pulmonary/ leaflets >0.7 cm variation pulmonary vascular disease Functional Severe annular dilation CW jet density and contour: Elevated RA pressure with “ ” (>40 mm or 21 mm/m2) dense, triangular with early c-V wave Marked leaflet tethering peak Diastolic interventricular Hepatic vein flow: systolic septal flattening may be reversal present D Symptomatic Primary Central jet area >10.0 cm2 RV/RA/IVC dilated with Fatigue, palpitations, Flail or grossly distorted severe TR Vena contracta width decreased IVC respirophasic dyspnea, abdominal leaflets >0.70 cm variation bloating, anorexia, edema Functional Severe annular dilation CW jet density and contour: Elevated RA pressure with “ ” (>40 mm or >21 mm/m2) dense, triangular with early c-V wave Marked leaflet tethering peak Diastolic interventricular Hepatic vein flow: systolic septal flattening reversal Reduced RV systolic function in late phase *Several valve hemodynamic criteria are provided for assessment of severity of TR, but not all criteria for each category will necessarily be present in every patient. Categorization of severity of TR as mild, moderate, or severe also depends on image quality and integration of these parameters with clinical findings. CW indicates continuous wave; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; IE, infective endocarditis; IVC, inferior vena cava; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle; and TR, tricuspid regurgitation.
TR. Symptoms include fatigue from low cardiac output, the tricuspid annular diameter should be measured in the abdominal fullness, edema, and palpitations, particularly if apical 4–chamber view. There is a linear relationship be- AF is also present. Progressive hepatic dysfunction may tween annular diameter and tricuspid regurgitant volume. A occur due to the elevated right atrial pressure, and thus diastolic diameter >40 mm (or >21 mm/m2)indicates assessment of liver function is useful in patients with significant annular dilation and an increased risk of persis- advanced degrees of TR. tent or progressive TR after isolated mitral valve surgery. TTE can distinguish primary from functional TR, define With RV remodeling, tricuspid valve leaflet tethering any associated left-sided valvular and/or myocardial disease, height and area also contribute to functional TR and may and provide an estimate of pulmonary artery systolic pres- predict the need for repair techniques other than annulo- sure. Characterization of severity of TR (Table 19) relies on plasty to achieve an effective and durable operative result. an integrative assessment of multiple parameters as recom- Pulmonary artery systolic pressure is estimated from the mended by the ASE and EAE. In cases of functional TR, maximal tricuspid valve regurgitant velocity using the e110 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Figure 5. Indications for Surgery
*See Table 19 for definition of stages. TA dilation is defined by >40 mm on TTE (>21 mm/m2)or>70 mm on direct intraoperative measurement. LV indicates left ventricular; PHTN, pulmonary hypertension; RV, right ventricular; TA, tricuspid annular; TR, tricuspid regurgitation; TTE, transthoracic echocardiogram; TV, tricuspid valve; and TVR, tricuspid valve replacement. modified Bernoulli equation. The accuracy of this technique artery systolic pressure, invasive measurement of pulmonary can be compromised in severe TR due to the difficulty in artery pressures and pulmonary vascular resistance can be assessing right atrial pressure as well as potential inaccura- helpful to guide clinical decision making in individual pa- cies of applying the simplified Bernoulli equation to lesions tients. Invasive data are essential for accurate diagnosis of with laminar flow. Assessment of RV systolic function is the cause of pulmonary hypertension and for the assessment challenged by geometric and image acquisition constraints, of pulmonary vascular reactivity following vasodilator chal- as well as by variability in RV loading conditions. Normal RV lenge. Direct measurements of right atrial pressure may systolic function is defined by several parameters, including also be useful for clinical decision making. Right ven- tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion >16 mm, tricuspid triculography may further aid in the evaluation of the valve annular velocity (S’) >10.0 cm per second, and RV severity of TR and the status of the right ventricle. Ther- end-systolic area <20.0 cm2 or fractional area change >35%. modilution cardiac output measurements may be inaccurate TEE for tricuspid valve assessment can be considered when with severe TR, and thus a Fick cardiac output should be TTE images are inadequate, although visualization of the measured to apply to the calculation of pulmonary resistance. tricuspid valve with TEE can also be suboptimal. CLASS IIb Supporting References: (5,461–469,469–471) 1. CMR or real-time 3D echocardiography may be considered for CLASS IIa assessment of RV systolic function and systolic and diastolic 1. Invasive measurement of pulmonary artery pressures and pul- volumes in patients with severe TR (stages C and D) and sub- monary vascular resistance can be useful in patients with TR optimal 2D echocardiograms. (Level of Evidence: C) when clinical and noninvasive data regarding their values are Assessment of RV systolic function in patients with TR discordant. (Level of Evidence: C) is a critical component of preoperative planning, especial- When physical examination, ECG, and TTE data ly in the context of reoperative isolated tricuspid valve regarding estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure are repair or replacement years after left-sided valve surgery. either discordant or insufficient, including when the TR jet Impaired RV systolic function negatively impacts early velocity signal is inadequate or may underestimate pulmonary functional, late functional, and survival outcomes following JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e111 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline tricuspid valve surgery. Evaluation with TTE or TEE may causative lesion in patients with functional TR. Reduc- be suboptimal in some patients, due to poor acoustic win- tion of pulmonary artery pressures and pulmonary vascu- dows, the technical limitations of standard echocardio- lar resistance with specific pulmonary vasodilators may graphic and Doppler techniques, and dynamic changes in be helpful to reduce RV afterload and functional TR in RV loading conditions. Both CMR and real-time 3D selected patients with pulmonary hypertension who dem- echocardiography may provide more accurate assessment onstrate acute responsiveness during invasive testing. of RV volumes and systolic function, as well as annular Medical treatment of conditions that elevate left-sided dimension and the degree of leaflet tethering. CMR may be filling pressures, such as systemic hypertension, should be the ideal modality in young asymptomatic patients with se- optimized. vere TR to assess initial and serial measurements of RV size Supporting References: (483,484) and systolic function. In addition, echocardiographic strain imaging or CT scanning may be useful in assessing RV 8.2.3. Intervention: Recommendations function. These imaging modalities are not widely used at CLASS I the time of guideline publication, and outcome data are 1. Tricuspid valve surgery is recommended for patients with se- needed to determine the incremental utility of these tests. vere TR (stages C and D) undergoing left-sided valve surgery. Supporting References: (472–481) (Level of Evidence: C) CLASS IIb The indications for surgical correction of TR are most 2. Exercise testing may be considered for the assessment of ex- often considered at the time of mitral or aortic valve sur- ercise capacity in patients with severe TR with no or minimal symptoms (stage C). (Level of Evidence: C) gery. Severe TR of either a primary or functional nature may not predictably improve after treatment of the left- Patients with severe functional TR usually report sided valve lesion and reduction of RV afterload; as such, symptoms referable to the responsible left-sided valve or severe TR should be addressed as part of the index pro- myocardial abnormality. However, in some patients with cedure. Reoperation for severe, isolated TR after left-sided primary TR, symptoms may not emerge until relatively late valve surgery is associated with a perioperative mortality in the course of the disease. As is the case for left-sided rate of 10% to 25%. Tricuspid valve repair does not add valve lesions, treadmill or bicycle testing may uncover appreciably to the risks of surgery and can be accomplished limitations to exercise not previously recognized by the with a clinically insignificant increase in ischemic time. patient and prompt earlier evaluation for surgery. Although There has been a significant increase in the number of some clinical experience has been reported for patients with tricuspid valve repairs performed for this indication over Ebstein’s anomaly, the effect on clinical outcomes of any the past decade. Tricuspid valve repair is preferable to exercise-induced changes in RV size/function or pulmo- replacement. When replacement is necessary for primary, nary artery pressures in patients with severe TR (stage C) uncorrectable tricuspid valve disease, the choice of pros- has not been prospectively studied. thesis is individualized, with the usual trade-offs between Supporting Reference: (482) thrombosis/anticoagulation with a mechanical valve and 8.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations durability with a tissue valve. Meta-analysis has shown no difference in overall survival between mechanical and tissue CLASS IIa valves for patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement. 1. Diuretics can be useful for patients with severe TR and signs of The risks and benefits of tricuspid valve operation should right-sided HF (stage D). (Level of Evidence: C) be carefully considered in the presence of severe RV sys- Patients with severe TR usually present with signs or tolic dysfunction or irreversible pulmonary hypertension, symptoms of right HF, including peripheral edema and due to the possibility of RV failure after operation. ascites. Diuretics can be used to decrease volume over- Supporting References: (485–494) load in these patients. Loop diuretics are typically provided CLASS IIa and may relieve systemic congestion, but their use can 1. Tricuspid valve repair can be beneficial for patients with mild, be limited by worsening low-flow syndrome. Aldosterone moderate, or greater functional TR (stage B) at the time of left- antagonists may be of additive benefit, especially in the sided valve surgery with either 1) tricuspid annular dilation or 2) setting of hepatic congestion, which may promote sec- prior evidence of right HF (464–466,495–501). (Level of ondary hyperaldosteronism. Evidence: B) CLASS IIb Left uncorrected at the time of left-sided valve sur- 1. Medical therapies to reduce elevated pulmonary artery pres- gery, mild or moderate degrees of functional TR may sures and/or pulmonary vascular resistance might be consid- progress over time in approximately 25% of patients and ered in patients with severe functional TR (stages C and D). (Level of Evidence: C) result in reduced long-term functional outcome and sur- vival. Risk factors for persistence and/or progression of Medical therapies for management of severe TR (stages TR include tricuspid annulus dilation (>40 mm diameter C and D) are limited. Attention should be focused on the or 21 mm/m2 diameter indexed to body surface area on e112 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 preoperative TTE; >70 mm diameter on direct intra- afterload and improvement in functional TR, especially in operative measurement); degree of RV dysfunction/re- the absence of significant (i.e., >40 mm on TEE) tricuspid modeling; leaflet tethering height; pulmonary artery annulus dilation. This observation dates to the early years hypertension; AF; nonmyxomatous etiology of MR; and of mitral valve surgery. Prediction rules that account for the intra-annular RV pacemaker or implantable cardioverter- relative contributions of pulmonary hypertension and only defibrillator leads. The cut-off of >70 mm diameter on mild-to-moderate degrees of tricuspid annulus enlarge- direct intraoperative measurement originated from a sin- ment for the risk of progressive TR are lacking. The benefit gle center, performed with the patient on cardiopulmonary of routine tricuspid valve repair in this context is less clear bypass using a supple ruler, taken from the anteroseptal across broad populations but may be considered on an commissure to the anteroposterior commissure. Echocar- individual basis. diography is usually performed on the beating heart and Supporting References: (503,505,506) examines a different plane of the tricuspid annulus. Nu- CLASS IIb merous observational studies and 1 prospective RCT attest 2. Tricuspid valve surgery may be considered for asymptomatic or to the benefit on several echocardiographic and functional minimally symptomatic patients with severe primary TR (stage parameters of tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve C) and progressive degrees of moderate or greater RV dilation surgery for mild-to-moderate TR (stage B) with tricuspid and/or systolic dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: C) annulus dilation. When surgery is performed for isolated The optimal timing of tricuspid valve surgery for severe primary MR due to a degenerative etiology, less than asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, severe primary moderate TR is unlikely to progress if left untreated. A TR has not been established. Extrapolation from limited prior recent history of right HF is also an indication for experiences reported for patients with stable carcinoid tricuspid valve repair at the time of left-sided valve surgery. heart disease and patients with a flail tricuspid leaflet and A survival benefit with tricuspid repair in this setting has application of the management principles adopted for not been demonstrated. Management of indwelling pace- patients with severe MR suggest that serial assessments maker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads may of RV size and function might trigger consideration of require their removal with epicardial placement in selected corrective surgery in selected patients with severe, primary patients. Other approaches, such as sequestering the leads TR when a pattern of continued deterioration can be in a commissure or placing them in an extra-annular po- established and the risks of surgery are considered ac- sition, may be used. Following repair with ring annulo- ceptable. In otherwise healthy patients without other plasty, residual TR is present in approximately 10% of comorbidities, such as the patient with severe TR due to patients at 5 years. trauma, the risk of tricuspid valve operation is low (<1% Supporting References: (463–466,495–504) to 2%) in the absence of RV dysfunction or pulmonary CLASS IIa hypertension. fi 2. Tricuspid valve surgery can be bene cial for patients with Supporting References: (507,508) symptoms due to severe primary TR that are unresponsive to medical therapy (stage D). (Level of Evidence: C) CLASS IIb 3. Reoperation for isolated tricuspid valve repair or replacement Correction of symptomatic severe primary TR (stage D) may be considered for persistent symptoms due to severe TR in patients without left-sided valve disease is preferentially (stage D) in patients who have undergone previous left-sided performed before onset of significant RV dysfunction. valve surgery and who do not have severe pulmonary hyper- Replacement may be required because of the extent and tension or significant RV systolic dysfunction. (Level of severity of the underlying pathology (e.g., carcinoid, radi- Evidence: C) ’ ation, Ebstein s anomaly). Reduction or elimination of the Isolated tricuspid valve surgery for severe TR has his- regurgitant volume load can alleviate systemic venous and torically been performed relatively late in the natural his- hepatic congestion and decrease reliance on diuretics. Pa- fi tory of the disease and once patients have become tients with severe congestive hepatopathy may also bene t symptomatic with signs of right HF. Unadjusted mortality from surgery to prevent irreversible cirrhosis of the liver. rates for isolated tricuspid valve surgery have therefore Quality and duration of long-term survival are related to exceeded those reported for isolated aortic or mitral valve residual RV function. surgery, and this trend has been even more pronounced CLASS IIb following reoperative tricuspid surgery late after left-sided 1. Tricuspid valve repair may be considered for patients with valve surgery. This high mortality is likely related to the moderate functional TR (stage B) and pulmonary artery hy- advanced nature of RV failure encountered at the time of (Level of pertension at the time of left-sided valve surgery. the second procedure, residual pulmonary hypertension, Evidence: C) LV dysfunction, and other valve abnormalities. Two Heart When pulmonary artery hypertension is caused pre- Valve Centers of Excellence have reported perioperative dominantly by left-sided valve disease, effective surgery on mortality rates with tricuspid valve reoperation of 4.2% the left-sided valve lesions usually leads to a fall in RV and 13.2%, respectively. Thus, the hazards imposed by JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e113 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline reoperation have influenced decision making for repair Hemodynamic assessment of TS is rarely undertaken of functional TR initially at the time of left-sided valve for patients with acquired disease but may be performed in surgery. The sobering results seen with tricuspid valve selected patients at the time of invasive study for another repair at reoperation inject a note of caution into the indication, such as MS with pulmonary hypertension. recommendations for its performance and may encour- Direct assessment of the absolute right atrial and RV di- age replacement with an age-appropriate (mechanical or astolic pressure may be useful in determining the contri- biological) prosthesis. The presence of either severe and bution of TS to the patient’s signs or symptoms. uncorrectable pulmonary hypertension or significant RV 8.4.2. Medical Therapy dysfunction constitutes a relative contraindication to reoperation. As for patients with severe TR, loop diuretics may be Supporting References: (485–489,509–512) useful to relieve systemic and hepatic congestion in patients See Online Data Supplement 19 for more information on with severe, symptomatic TS, although their use may be outcomes following tricuspid valve surgery. limited by worsening low-flow syndrome. Attention to left-sided valve disease and AF, when present, is also important. 8.3. Stages of Tricuspid Stenosis 8.4.3. Intervention: Recommendations See Table 20 for the stages of severe tricuspid stenosis (TS). CLASS I 1. Tricuspid valve surgery is recommended for patients with se- 8.4. Tricuspid Stenosis vere TS at the time of operation for left-sided valve disease. (Level of Evidence: C) 8.4.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations Surgery for severe TS is most often performed at the CLASS I fl 1. TTE is indicated in patients with TS to assess the anatomy of time of operation for left-sided valve disease, chie y the valve complex, evaluate severity of stenosis, and charac- rheumatic MS/MR. If repair is not adequate or feasible terize any associated regurgitation and/or left-sided valve dis- due to valve destruction or multiple levels of pathological ease. (Level of Evidence: C) involvement, replacement may be necessary. The choice of prosthesis should be individualized. Perioperative mortal- Rheumatic disease is the most common etiology of TS. ity rates are higher for mitral plus tricuspid versus either Its clinical manifestations are far overshadowed by those isolated mitral or tricuspid surgery alone. attributable to the associated left-sided (particularly mitral) Supporting Reference: (489) valve disease. Because TS is often not detected during bedside examination, TTE is essential for diagnosis and CLASS I 2. Tricuspid valve surgery is recommended for patients with iso- characterization. TS is usually accompanied by TR of lated, symptomatic severe TS. (Level of Evidence: C) varying severity. When valve and/or chordal thickening and calcification are evident, additional findings indicative Relief of severe stenosis should lower elevated right atrial of severe TS include mean pressure gradient >5 mm Hg, and systemic venous pressures and alleviate associated pressure half-time 190 milliseconds, valve area 1.0 cm2 symptoms. Tricuspid valve surgery is preferred over percu- (continuity equation), and associated right atrial and taneous balloon tricuspid commissurotomy for treatment inferior vena cava enlargement. It is recognized that as- of symptomatic severe TS because most cases of severe sessment of TS severity with TTE is limited by several TS are accompanied by TR (rheumatic, carcinoid, other), technical factors; thus, these values are less well validated and percutaneous balloon tricuspid commissurotomy may than those reported for MS. either create or worsen regurgitation. There is also a rela- Supporting Reference: (8) tive lack of long-term follow-up data on patients managed
CLASS IIb with percutaneous balloon tricuspid commissurotomy for 1. Invasive hemodynamic assessment of severity of TS may be this indication. Outcomes with surgery are dependent on considered in symptomatic patients when clinical and nonin- RV function. vasive data are discordant. (Level of Evidence: C) Supporting References: (513,514)
Table 20. Stages of Severe TS
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms
1 C, D Severe TS Thickened, distorted, calcified T /2 190 ms RA/IVC enlargement None or variable and dependent on severity leaflets Valve area 1.0 cm2 of associated valve disease and degree of obstruction The transtricuspid diastolic gradient is highly variable and is affected by heart rate, forward flow, and phases of the respiratory cycle. However, severe TS usually has mean pressure gradients >5to 10 mm Hg at heart rate 70 bpm. 1 bpm indicates beats per minute; IVC, inferior vena cava; RA, right atrium; T /2, pressure half-time; and TS, tricuspid stenosis. (8) e114 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 21. Stages of Severe PR
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms C, D Severe PR Distorted or absent leaflets, Color jet fills RVOT Paradoxical septal motion None or variable and dependent annular dilation CW jet density and contour: (volume overload pattern) on cause of PR and RV function dense laminar flow with RV enlargement steep deceleration slope; may terminate abruptly CW indicates continuous wave; PR, pulmonic regurgitation; RV, right ventricular; and RVOT, right ventricular outflow tract. (515)
CLASS IIb modern era. Treatment should focus on the cause(s) of 1. Percutaneous balloon tricuspid commissurotomy might be elevated pulmonary artery pressures. considered in patients with isolated, symptomatic severe TS Supporting Reference: (516) without accompanying TR. (Level of Evidence: C) Isolated, symptomatic severe TS without accompanying 9.2. Stages of Pulmonic Stenosis TR is an extremely rare condition for which percutaneous See Table 22 for the stages of severe pulmonic stenosis. balloon tricuspid commissurotomy might be considered, Pulmonic stenosis is essentially a congenital disorder. recognizing its short-term limitations and the lack of long- Less common etiologies include carcinoid and obstructing term outcome data. vegetations or tumors. Assessment with TTE alone is See Online Data Supplement 19 for more information on usually sufficient for diagnosis and clinical decision mak- outcomes following tricuspid valve surgery. ing. Indications for percutaneous balloon pulmonic valve commissurotomy and valve replacement are contained in 9. Pulmonic Valve Disease the “2008 ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease.” 9.1. Stages of Pulmonic Regurgitation Supporting Reference: (516)
See Table 21 for the stages of severe pulmonic regurgita- 10. Mixed Valve Disease tion (PR). Mild-to-moderate PR seen on echocardiography is common and does not require further follow-up or inter- 10.1. Mixed VHD vention if asymptomatic with normal RV size and func- 10.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up tion. Significant PR in patients is uncommon. Primary PR that follows in the wake of childhood surgery for tetralogy For the majority of patients with mixed valve disease, there of Fallot or other congenital lesions may progress insidi- is usually a predominant valve lesion (i.e., stenosis or ously and reach severe proportions that threaten RV regurgitation); further, the symptoms and pathophysiol- function without adequate clinical recognition. Its evalua- ogy resemble those of a pure dominant lesion. However, tion and management, including indications for valve the presence of mixed valve disease poses limitations for replacement, are comprehensively reviewed in the “2008 noninvasive and invasive techniques used to determine ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients severity. These limitations should be strongly considered in With Congenital Heart Disease.” The pulmonic valve is the evaluation of patients with mixed valve disease. For rarely involved by IE or rheumatic disease but is susceptible patients with mixed aortic disease and predominant AS, a to carcinoid accretion because it also affects the tricuspid high gradient and small valve area will be present. Pressure valve and results in varying degrees of stenosis and regur- overload results in concentric LV myocardial hypertrophy, gitation. Surgery is considered when symptoms or signs of usually without chamber enlargement except in late stages RV dysfunction have intervened and PR is severe. Sec- of the disease. Symptoms may be present in patients with ondary PR from long-standing pulmonary hypertension predominant AS with or without alterations in chamber and annular dilation is encountered less frequently in the morphology. Conversely, for patients with mixed aortic
Table 22. Stages of Severe Pulmonic Stenosis
Stage Definition Valve Anatomy Valve Hemodynamics Hemodynamic Consequences Symptoms
C, D Severe PS Thickened, distorted, possibly calcified Vmax >4 m/s; peak RVH None or variable and dependent leaflets with systolic doming and/or instantaneous gradient Possible RV, RA enlargement on severity of obstruction reduced excursion >64 mm Hg Poststenotic enlargement of Other anatomic abnormalities may main PA be present, such as narrowed RVOT
PA indicates pulmonary artery; PS, pulmonic stenosis; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle; RVH, right ventricular hypertrophy; RVOT, right ventricular outflow; and Vmax, maximal pulmonic valve jet velocity. (8) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e115 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline disease and predominant AR, the aortic velocity and pressure hypertrophy. An elevated left atrial pressure re- gradient may be significantly elevated due to regurgitation sults from both MS and regurgitation in patients with in the setting of AS, but the aortic valve area is relatively mixed mitral disease. Thus, patients with mixed mitral large. Patients with predominant AR will have both disease may develop symptoms or pulmonary hypertension pressure and volume overload, resulting in marked in- at earlier intervals than has been demonstrated in patients creases in LV volume. In these patients, symptoms may be with pure stenosis or regurgitation. The alterations in relatively latent due to preload recruitment with compen- loading conditions due to mixed valve disease may also lead satory hypertrophy. For patients with mixed mitral disease to cardiac symptoms and chamber remodeling in patients and predominant MS, a high transmitral gradient and when there is not a predominant lesion (i.e., mixed mod- small valve area will be present. Left atrial enlargement erate valve disease). Patients with mixed moderate valve occurs with relative preservation of the LV chamber size. disease present a special management challenge, as there is Conversely, in patients with mixed mitral disease and a paucity of data to guide timing of intervention in these predominant MR, LV remodeling will occur in addition to patients. left atrial enlargement. These patients frequently have high For those patients with symptoms of uncertain origin, transmitral gradients due to the regurgitant flow, but the valve intervention may be considered when there are valve area may be relatively large. clinical findings or data supportive of significant patho- For patients with mixed valve disease, there is a paucity logical consequences of the mixed valve lesion. Suppor- of data on the natural history of such coexistent conditions. tive abnormalities include objective evidence of functional Consequently, the appropriate timing for serial evaluations limitation (e.g., severely reduced peak myocardial oxygen of these patients remains uncertain. For patients with consumption attributable to impaired cardiac output) and predominant lesions (i.e., stenosis or regurgitation), serial significantly elevated atrial or ventricular pressures. Exer- evaluations in accordance with recommendations for the cise hemodynamic studies should be considered for those predominant valve lesion are generally recommended. patients with symptoms that are out of proportion to he- Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the coexis- modynamic findings at rest. For example, patients with tence of stenosis and regurgitation may have pathological mixed mitral disease and a relatively low mitral gradient consequences that are incremental to the effects of either of may be particularly susceptible to developing functional MS these disease states alone. As a result, patients with mixed at higher transvalvular flow rates due to the concomitant disease may require serial evaluations at intervals earlier regurgitant volume. In patients with mixed aortic disease, than recommended for single valve lesions. the pathological contribution of aortic regurgitant volume Supporting References: (517–521) may lessen with exercise due to shortening of diastole. Given the potential limitations of noninvasive assessments, 10.1.2. Medical Therapy direct pressure measurement with cardiac catheterization Recommendations for medical therapy follow those for may be needed for assessing ventricular filling abnormal- single valve disease when there is a predominant valve ities at rest and with exercise in patients with mixed valve lesion and other management recommendations for disease. Because the indications for intervention have not concomitant LV dysfunction. There are no other recom- been well studied in this patient population, the decision mendations for medical therapy specific to patients with to pursue surgical therapy should be individualized, with mixed valve disease. consideration of patient symptoms, severity of hemody- namic abnormalities, and risk of surgery. 10.1.3. Timing of Intervention Supporting References: (517–521) For patients with mixed valve disease and a predominant lesion, the need for intervention should generally follow 10.1.4. Choice of Intervention recommendations for a pure dominant lesion. This con- For patients with mixed valve disease, the appropriate sideration should be undertaken with attention to symp- interventional therapy is determined by guidelines for the toms, lesion severity, chamber remodeling, operative risk, predominant valve lesion with consideration of the severity and the expected surgical outcome. Timing of intervention of the concomitant valve disease. For example, in a patient must be individualized because coexistence of stenosis and with predominant AS, TAVR may be considered in pa- regurgitation may have pathological consequences that tients with moderate but not severe AR, whereas con- are incremental to the effects of either lesion alone. For ventional AVR may be a therapeutic option regardless of example, patients with mixed aortic disease will have severity of mixed valve disease. Similarly, percutaneous increased afterload due to both the regurgitant volume and balloon mitral commissurotomy is a therapeutic option in the relatively small aortic valve area. Thus, patients with patients with MS and suitable anatomy if there is mild but dominant AR may develop symptoms and require sur- not moderate or severe regurgitation. Percutaneous aortic gery before severe LV enlargement develops. For patients balloon dilation should not be performed if there is with dominant AS, coexistent regurgitation may be poor- moderate or severe regurgitation due to the potential for ly tolerated by a ventricle that is noncompliant due to worsening of the regurgitation with the procedure. e116 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
11. Prosthetic Valves disease(s), pulmonary hypertension, atrial size, LV and RV hypertrophy, LV and RV size and function, and pericardial disease. 11.1. Evaluation and Selection of (291,526,527) Prosthetic Valves Supporting References: CLASS I 11.1.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations 2. Repeat TTE is recommended in patients with prosthetic heart Patients who have undergone valve replacement are not valves if there is a change in clinical symptoms or signs sug- gesting valve dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: C) cured but still have serious heart disease. Patients have exchanged native valve disease for prosthetic valve disease Bioprosthetic valves are prone to tissue degeneration or and must be followed with the same care as those with pannus formation with development of valve regurgita- native valve disease. The clinical course of patients with tion and/or stenosis. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction typ- prosthetic heart valves is influenced by several factors, ically presents with the insidious onset of exertional including LV dysfunction; progression of other valve dyspnea or with a louder systolic murmur (MR or AS) or disease; pulmonary hypertension; concurrent coronary, a new diastolic murmur (AR or MS) on physical exami- myocardial, or aortic disease; and complications of pros- nation. More abrupt and severe symptoms may occur thetic heart valves. The interval between routine follow-up with bioprosthetic valve endocarditis or with degenerative visits depends on the patient’s valve type, residual heart rupture of a valve cusp. disease, comorbid conditions, and other clinical factors. Patients with mechanical valve dysfunction present Management of anticoagulation should be supervised with symptoms of HF, systemic thromboembolism, and monitored frequently by an experienced healthcare hemolysis, or a new murmur on auscultation. Mechani- professional. cal valve dysfunction may be due to thrombosis, pannus The asymptomatic uncomplicated patient is usually formation, or IE. Signs or symptoms of mechanical valve seen at 1–year intervals for a cardiac history and physical dysfunction are often acute or subacute because of more examination. ECG and chest x-ray examinations are not abrupt impairment of leaflet occluder opening or closing routinely indicated but may be appropriate in individual by thrombus or pannus. Acute or chronic paravalvular patients. Additional tests that may be considered include regurgitation may also be seen due to IE or suture hemoglobin and hematocrit in patients receiving chro- dehiscence. nic anticoagulation. No further echocardiographic testing TTE allows evaluation of valve dysfunction based on is required after the initial postoperative evaluation in imaging of leaflet structure and motion, vegetations, and patients with mechanical valves who are stable and who thrombus and Doppler evaluation for prosthetic valve have no symptoms or clinical evidence of prosthetic valve stenosis or regurgitation. Comparison with the baseline or ventricular dysfunction or dysfunction of other heart postoperative echocardiogram is particularly helpful for valves. detection of prosthetic valve dysfunction.
CLASS I Supporting References: (528,529) 1. An initial TTE study is recommended in patients after pros- CLASS I thetic valve implantation for evaluation of valve hemodynamics 3. TEE is recommended when clinical symptoms or signs suggest (522–525). (Level of Evidence: B) prosthetic valve dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: C) An echocardiographic examination performed 6 weeks TTE is the preferred approach for initial assessment of to 3 months after valve implantation is an essential com- suspected prosthetic valve dysfunction because it allows ponent of the first postoperative visit because it allows for correct alignment of the Doppler beam with transvalvular an assessment of the effects and results of surgery and flow for measurement of velocity, gradient, and valve area. serves as a baseline for comparison should complications or TTE also allows quantitation of LV volumes and LVEF, deterioration occur later. Doppler TTE provides accurate an estimate of pulmonary pressures, and evaluation of right measurements of transvalvular velocities and pressure gra- heart function. However, the left atrial side of a prosthetic dients as well as detection and quantitation of valvular and mitral valve is obscured by acoustic shadowing from the paravalvular regurgitation. Normal Doppler transvalvular TTE approach, resulting in a low sensitivity for detection velocities and gradients vary among different types and of prosthetic MR and prosthetic mitral valve thrombus, sizes of prosthetic valves but are also affected by patient- pannus, or vegetation. TEE provides superior images of specific factors, including body size and cardiac output. the left atrial side of the mitral prosthesis and is accurate The postoperative study, recorded when the patient is for diagnosis of prosthetic mitral valve dysfunction. asymptomatic and in a stable hemodynamic state, provides However, both TTE and TEE are needed for complete the normal Doppler flow data for that valve in that patient. evaluation in a patient with suspected prosthetic valve In addition to imaging and Doppler flow data for the dysfunction, particularly for those with prosthetic aortic prosthetic valve, TTE provides assessment of other valve valves in whom the posterior aspect of the valve is JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e117 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline shadowed on the TTE approach and the anterior aspect of CLASS I the valve is shadowed on the TEE approach. With sus- 1. The choice of valve intervention, that is, repair or replacement, as pected mechanical valve stenosis, fluoroscopy or CT im- well as type of prosthetic heart valve, should be a shared decision- ’ aging of valve occluder motion is also helpful for detection making process that accounts for the patient s values and pref- of reduced motion due to pannus or thrombus. erences, with full disclosure of the indications for and risks of anticoagulant therapy and the potential need for and risk of (530,531) Supporting References: reoperation. (Level of Evidence: C) CLASS IIa The choice of valve prosthesis in an individual patient is 1. Annual TTE is reasonable in patients with a bioprosthetic valve fi based on consideration of several factors, including valve after the rst 10 years, even in the absence of a change in fi clinical status. (Level of Evidence: C) durability, expected hemodynamics for a speci c valve type and size, surgical or interventional risk, the potential need The incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction is low for long-term anticoagulation, and patient preferences. within 10 years of valve implantation but increases mark- Specifically, the tradeoff between risk of reoperation for edly after that point; as such, routine annual evaluation is bioprosthetic valve degeneration and the risk associated a reasonable approach. Earlier evaluation may also be with long-term anticoagulation should be discussed in prudent in selected patients at increased risk of early bio- detail with the patient. Surgical or interventional risk for an prosthetic valve degeneration, including those with renal individual patient is estimated by using the STS PROM impairment, diabetes mellitus, abnormal calcium meta- score with the online calculator (Section 3.2.4). This in- bolism, systemic inflammatory disease, and in patients <60 formation is discussed with the patient and family to allow years of age. Patients typically remain asymptomatic until for shared decision making about the timing and type of valve dysfunction is severe enough to result in adverse intervention. In a patient with a small aortic annulus, hemodynamic consequences, such as LV dilation and patient-prosthesis mismatch of the implanted prosthetic systolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, or AF. It aortic valve may be avoided or reduced by consulting tables may be challenging to distinguish a murmur due to pros- of prosthetic valve hemodynamics for the valve types and thetic MR or AS from the normal postoperative flow sizes being considered. Aortic annular enlarging pro- murmur, and the diastolic murmurs of prosthetic AR and cedures may be used when patient-prosthesis mismatch MS often are very soft and difficult to hear on auscultation. cannot be avoided with any available valve substitute. Depending on the valve type and mechanism of regurgi- Bioprosthetic valves avoid the need for long-term anti- tation, some patients with asymptomatic significant pros- coagulation with VKA, such as warfarin, but have limited thetic valve regurgitation may require surgical intervention. durability. The risk of need for reoperation with a bio- For example, if prosthetic regurgitation is due to a bio- prosthetic valve is inversely related to the patient’s age at the prosthetic leaflet tear, more severe acute regurgitation may time of implantation, with a rate of structural deterioration suddenly occur and cause clinical decompensation. Other 15 to 20 years after implantation of only 10% in patients 70 asymptomatic patients with less severe prosthetic valve years of age at the time of implantation compared with 90% regurgitation or with stable valve anatomy can be moni- in those 20 years of age at the time of implantation. Me- tored for evidence of progressive LV dilation and systolic chanical valves are durable in patients of any age with a low dysfunction with the same criteria for timing of surgical risk of reoperation, and current VKA therapeutic manage- intervention as those for native valve regurgitation. With ment strategies are associated with a low risk of thrombo- prosthetic valve stenosis, echocardiographic diagnosis while embolism and bleeding. Some patients prefer to avoid repeat the patient is asymptomatic alerts the clinician to the need surgery and are willing to accept the risks and inconvenience for more frequent follow-up. Patients with asymptomatic of lifelong anticoagulant therapy. A mechanical valve might prosthetic valve stenosis should be educated about symp- be prudent for patients in whom a second surgical procedure toms, the likely need for repeat valve intervention, and the would be high risk; for example, those with prior radiation importance of promptly reporting new symptoms. therapy or a porcelain aorta. Other patients are unwilling to In patients with mechanical valve prostheses, routine consider long-term VKA therapy due to the inconvenience annual echocardiographic evaluation is not needed if the of monitoring, the attendant dietary and medication in- postoperative baseline study is normal in the absence of teractions, and the need to restrict participation in some signs or symptoms of valve dysfunction. However, many of types of athletic activity. In women who desire subsequent these patients require TTE for other indications, such as pregnancy, the issue of anticoagulation during pregnancy is a residual LV systolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, consideration (Section 13). aortic disease, or concurrent valve disease. In patients who are being treated with long-term VKA Supporting References: (532,533) anticoagulation before valve surgery, a mechanical valve may be appropriate, given its greater durability compared 11.1.2. Intervention: Recommendations with a bioprosthetic valve and the need for continued VKA See Table 23 for a summary of recommendations for anticoagulation even if a bioprosthetic valve is implanted. prosthetic valve choice. However, if interruption of VKA therapy is necessary for e118 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Table 23. Summary of Recommendations for Prosthetic Valve Choice
Recommendations COR LOE References Choice of valve intervention and prosthetic valve type should be a shared decision process I C N/A A bioprosthesis is recommended in patients of any age for whom anticoagulant therapy is I C N/A contraindicated, cannot be managed appropriately, or is not desired A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for AVR or MVR in patients <60 y of age who do not IIa B (534–536) have a contraindication to anticoagulation A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients >70 y of age IIa B (537–540) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 y and 70 y of age IIa B (541,542) Replacement of the aortic valve by a pulmonary autograft (the Ross procedure), when performed IIb C N/A by an experienced surgeon, may be considered in young patients when VKA anticoagulation is contraindicated or undesirable
AVR indicates aortic valve replacement; COR, Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence; MVR, mitral valve replacement; N/A, not applicable; and VKA, vitamin K antagonist. noncardiac procedures, bridging therapy with other anti- deterioration and a reoperation rate as high as 40% for pa- coagulants may be needed if a mechanical valve is present, tients 50 years of age, 55% for patients 40 years of age, 75% whereas stopping and restarting VKA therapy for other for patients 30 years of age, and 90% for patients 20 years indications may be simpler. Specific clinical circumstances, of age. Anticoagulation with VKA has an acceptable risk comorbid conditions, and patient preferences should be of complications in patients <60 years of age, particularly considered when deciding between a bioprosthetic and in compliant patients with appropriate monitoring of INR mechanical valve in patients receiving VKA therapy for levels. Thus, the balance between valve durability versus indications other than the prosthetic valve itself. risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events favors the Supporting References: (532,533,543–545) choice of a mechanical valve in patients <60 years of age. CLASS I Supporting References: (533,536,546) 2. A bioprosthesis is recommended in patients of any age for whom CLASS IIa anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated, cannot be managed 2. A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of appropriately, or is not desired. (Level of Evidence: C) age (537–540). (Level of Evidence: B) Anticoagulant therapy with VKA is necessary in all In patients >70 years of age at the time of bioprosthetic patients with a mechanical valve to prevent valve throm- valve implantation, the likelihood of primary structural bosis and thromboembolic events. If anticoagulation is deterioration at 15 to 20 years is only about 10%. In contraindicated or if the patient refuses VKA therapy, an addition, older patients are at higher risk of bleeding alternate valve choice is appropriate. complications related to VKA therapy and more often CLASS IIa require interruption of VKA therapy for noncardiac sur- 1. A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for AVR or MVR in pa- gical and interventional procedures. In the United States, tients less than 60 years of age who do not have a contraindi- the expected number of remaining years of life at 70 years cation to anticoagulation (534–536). (Level of Evidence: B) of age is 13.6 years for a man and 15.9 years for a woman; at 80 years of age the expected number of remaining years In a prospective randomized study of 575 patients un- of life is 7.8 years for men and 9.3 years for women. Thus, dergoing older-generation mechanical versus bioprosthetic it is reasonable to use a bioprosthetic valve in patients >70 valve replacement, overall survival was similar at 15 years in years of age to avoid the risks of anticoagulation because both groups. However, in patients <65 years of age un- the durability of the valve exceeds the expected years of life. dergoing AVR, primary valve failure occurred in 26% of Data from 41,227 patients in the Society for Cardiotho- those with a bioprosthetic valve compared with 0% of pa- racic Surgery in the Great Britain and Ireland National tients with a mechanical valve. Similarly, in those <65 years database between 2004 and 2009 show that the proportion of age undergoing MVR, primary valve failure occurred in of patients >70 years of age who receive a biological 44% of patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve compared prosthesis at the time of valve replacement has increased with 4% with a mechanical mitral valve (p¼0.0001). In a from 87% to 96%, with no evidence for an increase in propensity score matched comparison of 103 patients <60 adverse events. years of age undergoing mechanical versus biological AVR, Supporting References: (41,533,546) those with a mechanical valve had lower mortality rates (HR: 0.243; 95% CI: 0.054 to 0.923; p¼0.038) despite similar CLASS IIa 3. Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in pa- rates of valve-related complications. This is possibly related fi tients between 60 and 70 years of age (541,542). (Level of to better valve hemodynamics and the bene cial effects of Evidence: B) anticoagulant therapy in those with a mechanical valve. Overall, patients <60 years of age at the time of valve Outcomes are similar with implantation of either a implantation have a higher incidence of primary structural bioprosthetic or mechanical valve for patients between 60 JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e119 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline and 70 years of age at the time of surgery. In the Edin- aorta. The outcome of these new procedures, with data burgh Heart Valve Study of 533 patients (mean age extending into the second decade after operation, is not yet 54.4 10.4 years) undergoing valve surgery, there was no available. difference in long-term survival between those random- In a small (n¼228) RCT comparing pulmonary auto- ized to a Bjork-Shiley mechanical prosthesis or a porcine grafts with aortic valve allografts, the HR for death at 10 prosthesis (log-rank test: p¼0.39). In a prospective ran- years was 4.61 (p¼0.006) in those receiving an allograft domized Italian study of 310 patients between 55 and 70 compared with those with a pulmonary autograft AVR, years of age, there was no difference in overall survival at with survival in the autograft group similar to an age- 13 years between those receiving a mechanical valve matched general population. Freedom from reoperation compared with those who received a bioprosthetic valve. for the aortic sinuses and ascending aorta was 99% in the The linearized rates of thromboembolism, bleeding, IE, autograft group and 82% in the allograft group. Freedom and major adverse prosthesis-related events were no dif- from severe regurgitation of the neoaortic valve was 94% ferent between the 2 valve types, but valve failures and at 10 years. However, these outstanding results have not reoperations were more frequent in the bioprosthetic been generally replicated. In addition, an allograft valve is valve group compared with the mechanical valve group not the ideal comparator, given current outcomes with (p¼0.0001 and p¼0.0003, respectively). bioprosthetic valves. Although the evidence supports the use of either a In addition to reoperation for neoaortic valve regurgi- mechanical or bioprosthetic valve in patients 60 to 70 years tation, at least half of the new pulmonic homograft valve of age, patient preferences should also be considered. Ac- implants will require intervention during the second cording to data on 41,227 patients in the Society for decade. This is obviously a concern for young patients who Cardiothoracic Surgery in the Great Britain and Ireland began with single valve disease and then face a lifetime of National database collected between 2004 and 2009, the dealing with both pulmonic homograft and neoaortic valve proportion of patients 60 to 65 years of age who received a disease. Calcification of the homograft and adhesions be- bioprosthesis at the time of valve replacement increased tween the homograft and neoaorta may increase the diffi- from 37% to 55%; in those 65 to 70 years of age, the culty of reoperation. proportion increased from 62% to 78%. The Ross procedure is an effective procedure in the Supporting References: (532,533,543,546) hands of a small group of focused and experienced sur- geons. It is a risky procedure in the hands of surgeons who CLASS IIb perform it only occasionally. The procedure should be 1. Replacement of the aortic valve by a pulmonary autograft (the reserved for patients in whom anticoagulation is either Ross procedure), when performed by an experienced surgeon, may be considered in young patients when VKA anticoagulation contraindicated or very undesirable, and it should be per- is contraindicated or undesirable. (Level of Evidence: C) formed only by surgeons experienced in complex surgery involving the aortic valve, sinuses, and ascending aorta. Replacement of the aortic valve with a pulmonary Supporting References: (547–549) autograft (the Ross procedure) is a complex operation See Online Data Supplement 20 for more information on intended to provide an autologous substitute for the pa- choice of valve prosthesis. tient’s diseased aortic valve by relocating the pulmonic valve into the aortic position and subsequently replacing 11.2. Antithrombotic Therapy for the pulmonic valve with a homograft. It is a surgical Prosthetic Valves challenge and requires an experienced surgical team with 11.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up exceptional surgical expertise. In the most experienced hands, hospital mortality can be similar to mortality for a Effective antithrombotic therapy in patients with me- simple bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement. chanical heart valves requires continuous effective VKA Expansion of the Ross procedure to a broader group of anticoagulation with an INR in the target range. It is surgeons with less focused experience has been difficult. preferable to specify a single INR target in each patient, The failure mode of the Ross procedure is most often due recognizing that the acceptable range is 0.5 INR units on to regurgitation of the pulmonary autograft (the neoaortic each side of this target; this is preferable because it avoids valve) in the second decade after the operation. Regurgi- patients having INR values consistently near the upper or tation typically is due to leaflet prolapse if the autograft is lower edge of the range. In addition, fluctuations in INR implanted in the subcoronary position or to aortic sinus are associated with increased incidence of complications in dilation if the autograft is implanted starting at the aortic patients with prosthetic valves, so patients and caregivers sinuses. Surgical reinforcement techniques have been used should strive to attain the single INR value. The effects of to prevent dilation of the neoaortic sinuses. Some surgeons VKA anticoagulation vary with the specific medication, have advocated placing the pulmonic valve within a Dacron absorption of medication, effects of various foods and conduit. Still others have returned to placing the neoaortic medications, and changes in liver function. Most of the valve in a subcoronary position with a reinforced native published studies on VKA therapy used warfarin, although e120 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 other coumarin agents are used on a worldwide basis. In 0.53% per patient-year over the INR range of 2.0 to 4.5. clinical practice, a program of patient education and close In a large retrospective study, adverse events increased if surveillance by an experienced healthcare professional the INR was >4.0 in patients with mechanical AVR. In with periodic monitoring of the INR is necessary. Patient patients with the new-generation AVR without other risk monitoring by hospital-based anticoagulation clinics re- factors for thromboembolism, the risk of thromboembolic sults in lower complication rates compared with standard events was similar, but the risk of hemorrhage was lower care and is cost-effective due to lower rates of bleeding in the group with an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 versus the group and hemorrhagic complications. Periodic direct patient with an INR of 3.0 to 4.5 (p<0.01). In a study comparing contact and telephone encounters with the anticoagu- an INR target of 1.5 to 2.5 with the conventional 2.0 to lation clinic pharmacists are equally effective in reducing 3.0 in 396 patients with low-risk mechanical aortic pros- complication rates. Self-monitoring with home INR thetic valves and no other risk factors, the lower INR measurement devices is another option for educated and target was noninferior, but the quality of the evidence was motivated patients. low. Thus, for bileaflet and current-generation single Supporting References: (550–555) tilting disc valve prostheses in the aortic position, an INR of 2.5 (between 2.0 and 3.0) provides a reasonable balance 11.2.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations between optimal anticoagulation and a low risk of CLASS I bleeding for mechanical aortic valves with a low throm- 1. Anticoagulation with a VKA and INR monitoring is recommended boembolic risk. in patients with a mechanical prosthetic valve (556–558). Supporting Reference: (12) (Level of Evidence: A) CLASS I All patients with mechanical valves require anticoagu- 3. Anticoagulation with a VKA is indicated to achieve an INR of 3.0 lant therapy. In addition to the thrombogenicity of the in patients with a mechanical AVR and additional risk factors for intravascular prosthetic material, mechanical valves im- thromboembolic events (AF, previous thromboembolism, LV pose abnormal flow conditions, with zones of low flow dysfunction, or hypercoagulable conditions) or an older- generation mechanical AVR (such as ball-in-cage) (564). within their components, as well as areas of high-shear (Level of Evidence: B) stress, which can cause platelet activation, leading to valve thrombosis and embolic events. Life-long therapy In patients with an aortic mechanical prosthesis who with an oral VKA at an INR goal appropriate for the co- are at higher risk of thromboembolic complications, INR morbidity of the patient and the type and position of the should be maintained at 3.0 (range 2.5 to 3.5). These pa- mechanical valve prosthesis is recommended to decrease tients include those with AF, previous thromboembolism, the incidence of thromboembolism and the associated and a hypercoagulable state. Many would also include pa- morbidity (e.g., ischemic stroke, cerebrovascular accident, tients with severe LV dysfunction in this higher-risk group. and peripheral systemic embolism). Cumulative data show Supporting Reference: (12) that anticoagulation with a VKA is protective against valve CLASS I thrombosis (OR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.2) and throm- 4. Anticoagulation with a VKA is indicated to achieve an INR of 3.0 boembolic events (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.27). in patients with a mechanical MVR (564,565). (Level of Many centers initiate heparin early after surgery for Evidence: B) anticoagulation until the INR reaches the therapeutic In patients with mechanical prostheses, the incidence of range. Bridging anticoagulation is typically started once thromboembolism is higher for the mitral than the aortic postoperative bleeding is no longer an issue. Some centers use subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) position, and the rate of thromboembolism is lower in patients with a higher INR goal compared with those with or unfractionated heparin (UFH), whereas other centers a lower target INR. In the GELIA (German Experience continue to prefer intravenous UFH. With Low Intensity Anticoagulation) study of patients Supporting References: (12,556,559,560) with a mechanical mitral prosthesis, a lower INR (2.0 to CLASS I 3.5) was associated with lower survival rates than a higher 2. Anticoagulation with a VKA to achieve an INR of 2.5 is re- target INR range (2.5 to 4.5) in those with a second me- fl commended in patients with a mechanical AVR (bilea et or chanical valve. Patient compliance may be challenging with current-generation single tilting disc) and no risk factors for higher INR goals. In 1 study, patients with a target INR thromboembolism (561–563). (Level of Evidence: B) between 2.0 and 3.5 were within that range 74.5% of the The intensity of anticoagulation in a patient with a time. In contrast, patients with a target INR of 3.0 to 4.5 mechanical aortic valve prosthesis should be optimized so were within range only 44.5% of the time. An INR target that protection from thromboembolism and valve throm- of 3.0 (range 2.5 to 3.5) provides a reasonable balance bosis is achieved without excess risk of bleeding. The rate between the risks of under- or overanticoagulation in pa- of thromboembolism in patients with bileaflet mechanical tients with a mechanical mitral valve. AVR on VKA and antiplatelet regimen is estimated to be Supporting References: (12,562) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e121 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
CLASS I bioprosthetic aortic valves are presumed to apply to mitral 5. Aspirin 75 mg to 100 mg daily is recommended in addition to valves as well. anticoagulation with a VKA in patients with a mechanical valve Supporting Reference: (12) prosthesis (566,567). (Level of Evidence: A) CLASS IIa Aspirin is recommended for all patients with prosthetic 2. Anticoagulation with a VKA is reasonable for the first 3 months heart valves, including those with mechanical prosthetic after bioprosthetic MVR or repair to achieve an INR of 2.5 (Level of Evidence: C) valves receiving VKA therapy. Even with the use of VKA, (576). the risk of thromboemboli is 1% to 2% per year. The risk of ischemic stroke after all types of mitral valve The addition of aspirin 100 mg daily to oral VKA surgery is about 2% at 30 days, 3% at 180 days, and 8% at anticoagulation decreases the incidence of major embo- 5 years. This is observed even with routine use of early < lism or death (1.9% versus 8.5% per year; p 0.001), with heparin followed by VKA in patients with a mechanical the stroke rate decreasing to 1.3% per year versus 4.2% valve or other indications for long-term anticoagulant ther- < per year (p 0.027) and overall mortality to 2.8% per year apy. The risk of ischemic stroke at 5 years is lower with < versus 7.4% per year (p 0.01). The addition of low- mitral valve repair (6.1% 0.9%) compared with bio- dose aspirin (75 mg to 100 mg per day) to VKA ther- prosthetic (8.0% 2.1%) and mechanical valve replacement apy (INR 2.0 to 3.5) also decreases mortality due to other (16.1% 2.7%). In 1 study, patients with a bioprosthetic cardiovascular diseases. The combination of low-dose MVR who received anticoagulation had a lower rate of aspirin and VKA is associated with a slightly increased thromboembolism than those who did not receive therapy risk of minor bleeding such as epistaxis, bruising, and with VKA (2.5% per year with anticoagulation versus hematuria, but the risk of major bleeding does not differ 3.9% per year without anticoagulation; p¼0.05). However, fi signi cantly between those who received aspirin (8.5%) another study showed that even with routine anticoagu- ¼ versus those who did not (6.6%; p 0.43). The risk of GI lation early after valve surgery, the incidence of ischemic irritation and hemorrhage with aspirin is dose dependent stroke within the first 30 postoperative days was higher over the range of 100 mg to 1,000 mg per day, but the after replacement with a biological prosthesis (4.6% 1.5%; antiplatelet effects are independent of dose over this p<0.0001) than after mitral valve repair (1.5% 0.4%) or range. The addition of aspirin (75 mg to 100 mg per day) replacement with a mechanical prosthesis (1.3% 0.8%; to VKA should be strongly considered unless there is p<0.001). Thus, anticoagulation with a target INR of 2.5 a contraindication to the use of aspirin (i.e., bleeding or (range 2.0 to 3.0) is reasonable early after bioprosthetic aspirin intolerance). This combination is particularly mitral valve implantation. appropriate in patients who have had an embolus while Many centers start heparin as soon as the risk of surgical on VKA therapy with a therapeutic INR, those with bleeding is acceptable (usually within 24 to 48 hours), with known vascular disease, and those who are known to be maintenance of a therapeutic partial thromboplastin time. particularly hypercoagulable. AfteranoverlapofheparinandVKAfor3to5days, – Supporting References: (12,568 571) heparin may be discontinued when the INR reaches 2.5.
CLASS IIa After 3 months, the tissue valve can be treated like native 1. Aspirin 75 mg to 100 mg per day is reasonable in all patients valve disease, and VKA can be discontinued in more than with a bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valve (572–575). (Level of two thirds of patients with biological valves. In the Evidence: B) remaining patients with associated risk factors for throm- boembolism, such as AF, previous thromboembolism, or The risk of a clinical thromboembolism is on average hypercoagulable condition, lifelong VKA therapy is indi- 0.7% per year in patients with biological valves in sinus cated to achieve an INR of 2 to 3. rhythm; this figure is derived from several studies in which Supporting References: (572–574,577–582) the majority of patients were not undergoing therapy with VKA. Among patients with bioprosthetic valves, those CLASS IIb with mitral prostheses have a higher rate of thrombo- 1. Anticoagulation, with a VKA, to achieve an INR of 2.5 may be reasonable for the first 3 months after bioprosthetic AVR (583). embolism than those with aortic prostheses in the long (Level of Evidence: B) term (2.4% per patient-year versus 1.9% per patient-year, respectively). In a prospective study of bioprosthetic Patients with a bioprosthetic aortic valve are at a higher valves in patients with AVR who were in sinus rhythm risk of ischemic stroke or peripheral embolism than the and had no other indications for anticoagulation, the normal population, particularly in the first 90 days after incidence of thromboembolic events, bleeding, and death valve replacement. Anticoagulation early after valve im- was similar between those who received aspirin or aspirin- plantation is intended to decrease the risk of thrombo- like antiplatelet agents only versus those who received embolism until the prosthetic valve is fully endothelialized. VKA. There are no studies examining the long-term effect The potential benefit of anticoagulation therapy must be of antiplatelet agents in patients with bioprosthetic MVR weighed against the risk for bleeding, particularly in pa- or mitral valve repair, but the beneficial effects seen with tients who are at low risk for thromboembolism (e.g., those e122 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 in sinus rhythm with normal LV function, no history of dosing with dabigatran. The RE-ALIGN (Randomized, thromboembolism, or history of hypercoagulable condi- Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety and Pharmacoki- tions). Small RCTs have not established benefit for anti- netics of Oral Dabigatran Etexilate in Patients after Heart coagulation after implantation of a bioprosthetic AVR; Valve Replacement) trial was stopped prematurely for however, a large observational registry demonstrated ben- excessive thrombotic complications in the dabigatran arm. efit without a significantly increased bleeding risk. In 4,075 After enrollment of 252 patients, ischemic or unspecified patients undergoing isolated bioprosthetic AVR with a stroke occurred in 9 patients (5%) randomized to dabiga- median duration of follow-up of 6.57 person-years, the tran compared with no patients treated with warfarin. In estimated rate of strokes per 100 person-years was 7.00 the dabigatran group, 15 patients (9%) reached the com- (95% CI: 4.07 to 12.06) in patients not treated with VKA posite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack, sys- versus 2.69 (95% CI: 1.49 to 4.87) in those treated with temic embolism, MI, or death compared with 4 patients VKA (HR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.09 to 5.55). The lower event (5%) in the warfarin group (HR in the dabigatran group: rates in those on VKA persisted at 6 months, with a car- 1.94; 95% CI: 0.64 to 5.86; p¼0.24). In addition, a major diovascular death rate of 6.50 per 100 person-years (95% bleeding episode occurred in 7 patients (4%) in the dabi- CI: 4.67 to 9.06) in those not on VKA therapy compared gatran group and 2 patients (2%) in the warfarin group, with 2.08 (95% CI: 0.99 to 4.36) in those on VKA therapy and bleeding of any type occurred in 45 patients (27%) and (adjusted internal rate of return: 3.51; 95% CI: 1.54 to 10 patients (12%), respectively (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.23 to 8.03) for events within 90 to 179 days after surgery. Thus, 4.86; p¼0.01). The Food and Drug Administration has anticoagulation with an INR target of 2.5 (range 2.0 to issued a specific contraindication for use of this product in 3.0) may be reasonable for at least 3 months, and perhaps patients with mechanical heart valves. These agents are also as long as 6 months, after bioprosthetic AVR. not recommended, due to lack of data on their safety and Supporting References: (572,574,583–586) effectiveness, in patients with bioprosthetic valves who CLASS IIb require anticoagulation. 2. Clopidogrel 75 mg daily may be reasonable for the first 6 Supporting References: (591–594) months after TAVR in addition to life-long aspirin 75 mg to 100 mg daily. (Level of Evidence: C) During TAVR, a biological prosthesis mounted on a 11.3. Bridging Therapy for Prosthetic Valves metallic expandable frame is inserted transcutaneously 11.3.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up within the native aortic valve with stenosis. In prospective RCTs of balloon-expandable TAVR for treatment of AS, The management of patients with mechanical heart valves the research protocol included dual antiplatelet therapy in whom interruption of anticoagulation therapy is needed with aspirin and clopidogrel for the first 6 months to for diagnostic or surgical procedures should take into ac- minimize the risk of thromboembolism. The current re- count the type of procedure, risk factors, and type, location, commendation is based on outcomes in these published and number of heart valve prosthesis(es). studies, although the issue of antiplatelet therapy was not 11.3.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations assessed. A small prospective, RCT, single-center study of CLASS I 79 patients receiving self-expanding TAVR did not show a 1. Continuation of VKA anticoagulation with a therapeutic INR is difference in the composite of major adverse cardiac and recommended in patients with mechanical heart valves under- fi cerebrovascular events, de ned as death from any cause, going minor procedures (such as dental extractions or cataract MI, major stroke, urgent or emergency conversion to sur- removal) where bleeding is easily controlled. (Level of Evidence: C) gery, or life-threatening bleeding between aspirin and clopidogrel versus aspirin alone at both 30 days (13% Management of antithrombotic therapy must be indi- versus 15%; p¼0.71) and 6 months (18% versus 15%; vidualized, but some generalizations apply. Antithrombotic p¼0.85). therapy should not be stopped for procedures in which Supporting References: (79,170,587,588) bleeding is unlikely or would be inconsequential if it oc- curred (i.e., surgery on the skin, dental cleaning, or simple CLASS III: Harm treatment for dental caries). Eye surgery, particularly for 1. Anticoagulant therapy with oral direct thrombin inhibitors or cataracts or glaucoma, is usually associated with very little anti-Xa agents should not be used in patients with mechanical valve prostheses (589–591). (Level of Evidence: B) bleeding and thus is frequently performed without alter- ations to antithrombotic treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved CLASS I new anticoagulants that are direct thrombin inhibitors or 2. Temporary interruption of VKA anticoagulation, without bridging factor Xa inhibitors (dabigatran, apixaban, and rivarox- agents while the INR is subtherapeutic, is recommended in aban) for anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with AF not patients with a bileaflet mechanical AVR and no other risk caused by VHD. Several case reports have demonstrated factors for thrombosis who are undergoing invasive or surgical thrombosis on mechanical heart valves despite therapeutic procedures. (Level of Evidence: C) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e123 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
The risk of increased bleeding during a procedure per- procedure being performed. For procedures with a low formed with a patient receiving antithrombotic therapy bleeding risk, such as coronary angiography from the has to be weighed against the increased risk of a throm- radial approach, only slight modification in VKA dos- boembolism caused by stopping the therapy. In patients ing is needed. With interventional procedures at higher with a bileaflet mechanical aortic valve and no other risk risk, many clinicians prefer to stop VKA anticoagulation factors for thromboembolism, the risk of stopping VKA and use bridging therapy as is done for other surgical is relatively slight if the drug is withheld for only a few procedures. days. In these low-risk patients, the inconvenience and Supporting References: (597–599) expense of bridging anticoagulation can be avoided. When CLASS IIa it is necessary to interrupt VKA therapy, VKA is stopped 1. Administration of fresh frozen plasma or prothrombin complex 2 to 4 days before the procedure (so the INR falls to <1.5 concentrate is reasonable in patients with mechanical valves for major surgical procedures) and restarted as soon as receiving VKA therapy who require emergency noncardiac sur- bleeding risk allows, typically 12 to 24 hours after surgery. gery or invasive procedures. (Level of Evidence: C) Supporting References: (595,596) Because VKA inhibits production of several proteins
CLASS I involved in the coagulation cascade, the anticoagulant ef- 3. Bridging anticoagulation with either intravenous UFH or sub- fect persists until adequate levels of these proteins are cutaneous LMWH is recommended during the time interval achieved after stopping warfarin therapy, a process that when the INR is subtherapeutic preoperatively in patients who takes at least 48 to 72 hours. In patients with mechanical are undergoing invasive or surgical procedures with a 1) me- valves on long-term warfarin therapy who require emer- chanical AVR and any thromboembolic risk factor, 2) older- gency surgery or invasive procedures, anticoagulation can generation mechanical AVR, or 3) mechanical MVR. (Level of be reversed by administration of fresh frozen plasma or Evidence: C) intravenous prothrombin complex concentrate. Adminis- tration of low-dose (1 mg to 2 mg) oral vitamin K may be In patients at higher risk of thromboembolism during added because the effect of fresh frozen plasma or pro- interruption of VKA anticoagulation, the risk of an adverse thrombin complex has a shorter half-life than the effects of event can be minimized by anticoagulation with alternative VKA therapy. Higher doses of vitamin K are discouraged agents that can be stopped right before and restarted right to avoid difficulty in achieving a therapeutic INR after the after the surgical procedure (e.g., “bridging therapy”). Pa- procedure. tients at high risk of thrombosis include all patients with Supporting References: (600–602) mechanical MVR or tricuspid valve replacements and See Online Data Supplement 21 for more information on patients with an AVR and any risk factors for thrombo- bridging therapy. embolism. Such risk factors include AF, previous throm- boembolism, hypercoagulable condition, older-generation 11.4. Excessive Anticoagulation and mechanical valves, LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <30%), Serious Bleeding With Prosthetic Valves: or >1 mechanical valve. Recommendation When interruption of VKA therapy is needed, VKA is See Figure 6 for anticoagulation for prosthetic valves. stopped 2 to 4 days before the procedure (so the INR falls to <1.5 for major surgical procedures) and restarted as CLASS IIa soon as bleeding risk allows, typically 12 to 24 hours after 1. Administration of fresh frozen plasma or prothrombin complex surgery. Bridging anticoagulation with intravenous UFH concentrate is reasonable in patients with mechanical valves or subcutaneous LMWH is started when INR is <2.0 and uncontrollable bleeding who require reversal of anti- coagulation (601,602). (Level of Evidence: B) (usually about 48 hours before surgery) and stopped 4 to 6 hours (for intravenous UFH) or 12 hours (for subcu- Excessive anticoagulation (INR 5) greatly increases the taneous LMWH) before the procedure. When LMWH is risk of hemorrhage. However, a rapid decrease in the INR used, therapeutic weight-adjusted doses are given twice that leads to INR falling below the therapeutic level in- daily. One study of bridging therapy for interruption of creases the risk of thromboembolism. High-dose vitamin VKA included 215 patients with mechanical valves. In the K should not be given routinely, because this may create total group of 650 patients, the risk of thromboembolism a hypercoagulable condition. In most patients with an (including possible events) was 0.62%, with 95% CI: INR of 5 to 10, excessive anticoagulation can be managed 0.17% to 1.57%. Major bleeding occurred in 0.95% (0.34% by withholding VKA and monitoring the level of anti- to 2.0%). Most studies using LMWH used enoxaparin for coagulation with serial INR determinations. In patients therapy. The use of bridging heparin after surgery must be with an INR >10 who are not bleeding, it is prudent to individualized, depending on risk of bleeding and risk of administer 1 mg to 2.5 mg of oral vitamin K1 (phytona- thrombosis. dione) in addition to holding VKA therapy. When the The acceptable level of anticoagulation in patients un- INR falls to a safe level, VKA therapy is restarted with the dergoing cardiac catheterization depends on the specific dose adjusted as needed to maintain therapeutic e124 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Figure 6. Anticoagulation for Prosthetic Valves
Risk factors include AF, previous thromboembolism, LV dysfunction, hypercoagulable condition, and older-generation mechanical AVR. AF indicates atrial fibrillation; ASA, aspirin; AVR, aortic valve replacement; INR, international normalized ratio; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin; MVR, mitral valve replacement; PO, by mouth; QD, every day; SC, subcutaneous; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement; UFH, unfractionated heparin; and VKA, vitamin K antagonist.
anticoagulation. In emergency situations, such as uncon- medical therapy. Screening questions for symptoms that trollable bleeding, administration of fresh frozen plasma or may be related to embolic events are especially important if prothrombin complex concentrate is reasonable because anticoagulation has been suboptimal. Patients should be the onset of action of vitamin K is very slow. educated about symptoms related to embolic events and Supporting References: (600,603) instructed to promptly report to a healthcare provider should symptoms occur. TTE is the first step in evaluation 11.5. Thromboembolic Events With of suspected prosthetic valve thromboembolism to evaluate Prosthetic Valves valve hemodynamics in comparison to previous studies, and TEE often is needed, particularly for mitral prosthetic 11.5.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up valves. However, the prosthetic valve should be considered The annual risk of thromboembolic events in patients with the source of thromboembolism even if echocardiographic a mechanical heart valve is 1% to 2% versus 0.7% with a findings are unchanged. bioprosthetic valve, even with appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Many complications are likely related to subop- 11.5.2. Medical Therapy timal anticoagulation; even in clinical trials, the time in In patients on VKA anticoagulation and aspirin 75 mg to therapeutic range for patients on VKA varies from only 100 mg daily for a mechanical valve who have a definite 60% to 70%. However, embolic events do occur even in embolic episode, it is important to document the adequacy patients who are in the therapeutic range at every testing of the anticoagulation, including the time within thera- interval. Annual follow-up in patients with prosthetic heart peutic range. If there have been periods in which the INR valves should include review of the adequacy of anti- has been documented to be subtherapeutic, appropriate coagulation and any issues related to compliance with steps to ensure adequate anticoagulation should be taken. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e125 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
If embolic events have occurred despite a therapeutic INR imaging can be used to evaluate the leaflet motion of an when other contraindications are not present, a prudent obstructed mechanical prosthesis, the etiology and hemo- approach to antithrombotic therapy is: dynamic impact are best evaluated by echocardiography. TTE allows evaluation of valve hemodynamics and Increase the INR goal from 2.5 (range 2.0 to 3.0) to detection of valve stenosis or regurgitation. Leaflet motion 3.0 (range 2.5 to 3.5) for patients with an AVR; or, and thrombus may be visualized in some patients, but increase the INR goal from 3.0 (range 2.5 to 3.5) to TEE is more sensitive for detection of valve thrombosis, 4.0 (range 3.5 to 4.5) for patients with an MVR. especially of the mitral valve. Transthoracic imaging also In patients with a bioprosthetic valve with embolic events allows measurement of LV size and systolic function, left who are only on aspirin 75 mg to 100 mg daily, a possible atrial size, right heart function, and an estimation of pul- approach includes consideration of anticoagulation with monary pressures. a VKA. Clinical evaluation, including auscultation of dimin- ished or abolished clicks together with new systolic or 11.5.3. Intervention diastolic murmurs, is the first step in the routine assess- Embolic events in patients with prosthetic heart valves ment of patients with a prosthetic heart valve but is un- should be managed by ensuring optimal anticoagulation reliable for detection of valve thrombosis. TTE allows and antiplatelet therapy. Measures to improve patient detection of prosthetic valve dysfunction and quantita- compliance, including patient education and more frequent tion of stenosis and regurgitation but is inadequate for monitoring, should be instituted. Studies show that pa- evaluation of the presence and size of thrombus or valve tients on anticoagulation with VKA who are managed by a occluder motion. dedicated pharmacist-led anticoagulation clinic have lower CLASS I rates of bleeding and thromboembolism compared with 2. TEE is indicated in patients with suspected prosthetic conventional monitoring by a clinician’soffice. Surgical valve thrombosis to assess thrombus size and valve motion intervention is rarely needed for recurrent thromboembolic (605–607). (Level of Evidence: B) events but might be considered in some situations. In TEE allows direct imaging of mechanical valve patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves, calcific thrombosis, particularly for thrombi on the left atrial emboli may complicate thrombotic embolism, often in side of the mitral valve, which is obscured by shadowing association with prosthetic valve stenosis and/or regurgi- on TTE imaging. Compared with chronic fibrous in- tation. In patients with mechanical valves who have growth or pannus, thrombi tend to be larger, less dense, recurrent serious adverse effects of over- or underanti- and more mobile than pannus on ultrasound imaging. coagulation despite all efforts to improve compliance, Thrombus size, measured on TEE, is a significant inde- replacement of the mechanical valve with a bioprosthetic pendent predictor of outcome after thrombolysis of an valve might be considered after a discussion of the potential obstructed prosthetic heart valve. Multivariate analysis risks and benefits of this approach. of 107 patients with thrombosed heart valve prostheses 11.6. Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis revealed that prior history of stroke (OR: 4.55; 95% CI: 1.35 to 15.38) and thrombus area by TEE (OR: 2.41 See Figure 7 for evaluation and management of suspected per 1.0 cm2; CI: 1.12 to 5.19) were independent predic- valve thrombosis. tors of complications after thrombolysis. A thrombus 11.6.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations area <0.8 cm2 identified patients at lower risk for com-
CLASS I plications from thrombolysis, irrespective of NYHA clas- fi 1. TTE is indicated in patients with suspected prosthetic valve si cation. TEE should be used to identify lower-risk thrombosis to assess hemodynamic severity and follow resolu- patients for thrombolysis. tion of valve dysfunction (604,605). (Level of Evidence: B) Supporting References: (605–607) Obstruction of prosthetic heart valves may be caused by CLASS IIa 1. Fluoroscopy or CT is reasonable in patients with suspected valve thrombus formation, pannus ingrowth, or a combination thrombosis to assess valve motion. (Level of Evidence: C) of both. Mechanical prosthetic heart valve thrombosis has a prevalence of only 0.3% to 1.3% per patient-year in Fluoroscopy and CT are alternative imaging techniques developed countries but is as high as 6.1% per patient-year for evaluation of mechanical valve “leaflet” motion, par- in developing countries. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is ticularly in patients with prosthetic aortic valves, which less common. Differentiation of valve dysfunction due to are difficult to image by either TTE or TEE. CT is best thrombus versus fibrous tissue ingrowth (pannus) is chal- suited for measurement of valve opening angles because lenging because the clinical presentations are similar. 3D image acquisition allows postacquisition analysis from Thrombus is more likely when there is a history of inad- multiple views. CT imaging may also allow visualization equate anticoagulation and with more acute onset of valve of pannus or thrombus in patients with mechanical or dysfunction and symptoms. Although fluoroscopy or CT bioprosthetic valves. e126 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
Figure 7. Evaluation and Management of Suspected Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis
*See text for dosage recommendations. CT indicates computed tomography; IV, intravenous; NYHA, New York Heart Association; Rx, therapy; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography; and TTE, transthoracic echocardiography.
11.6.2. Medical Therapy: Recommendations thrombolysis-related complications, whereas those with a large thrombus (>1.0 cm diameter or 0.8 cm2 in area) CLASS IIa have a 2.4–fold higher rate of complications per 1.0 cm2 1. Fibrinolytic therapy is reasonable for patients with a throm- increase in size. Factors that identify patients at risk for < bosed left-sided prosthetic heart valve, recent onset ( 14 days) adverse outcomes of fibrinolytic therapy include active of NYHA class I to II symptoms, and a small thrombus (<0.8 cm2) internal bleeding, history of hemorrhagic stroke, recent (605,608). (Level of Evidence: B) cranial trauma or neoplasm, diabetic hemorrhagic reti- Although fibrinolytic therapy of a left-sided obstructed nopathy, large thrombi, mobile thrombi, systemic hy- prosthetic heart valve is associated with an overall rate of pertension (>200 mm Hg/120 mm Hg), hypotension or thromboembolism and bleeding of 17.8%, the degree of shock, and NYHA class III to IV symptoms. risk is directly related to thrombus size. When thrombus With mild symptoms due to aortic or mitral valve area is measured in the 2D TEE view showing the largest thrombosis with a small thrombus burden, it is prudent to thrombus size, an area of 0.8 cm2 provides a useful reassess after several days of intravenous UFH. If valve breakpoint for clinical decision making. A mobile throm- thrombosis persists, fibrinolysis with a recombinant tissue bus or a length >5 mm to 10 mm is also associated with plasminogen activator dose of a 10 mg IV bolus followed increased embolic risk. Patients with a small thrombus by 90 mg infused IV over 2 hours is reasonable. Heparin (<1.0 cm in diameter or 0.8 cm2 in area) have fewer and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are held, but aspirin JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e127 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline can be continued. A lower tissue plasminogen activator unless the patient is asymptomatic and the thrombus dose of a 20 mg IV bolus followed by 10 mg per hour burden is small. for 3 hours may be appropriate in some situations. Alter- Supporting References: (605,613,614) natively, streptokinase may be used with a loading dose of CLASS IIa 500,000 IU in 20 minutes followed by 1,500,000 IU over 1. Emergency surgery is reasonable for patients with a throm- 10 hours. Urokinase is less effective than tissue plasmin- bosed left-sided prosthetic heart valve with a mobile or large ogen activator or streptokinase. If fibrinolytic therapy is thrombus (>0.8 cm2) (605,607,610). (Level of Evidence: C) successful, it is followed by intravenous UFH until VKA Prompt surgical treatment of a thrombosed prosthetic achieves an INR of 3.0 to 4.0 for aortic prosthetic valves heart valve is associated with a relatively low rate of mor- and 3.5 to 4.5 for mitral prosthetic valves. A structured tality. In a retrospective study of 106 surgeries for institutional protocol with indications, contraindications, obstructed left-sided prosthetic heart valves, the mortality and a specific timeline for medication administration and rate was 17.5% for patients with NYHA class IV symp- patient monitoring is recommended. toms and 4.7% in those patients with NYHA class I to III After treatment of the acute thrombotic event, it is symptoms. Mortality was similar for removing the important to always determine the adequacy of anti- thrombus or replacing the entire prosthetic valve. Patients coagulation before the event and ensure that there is with large, mobile clots that extend beyond the prosthesis meticulous follow-up after the event. The anticoagulation are better suited for surgical intervention than fibrinolysis, regimen can be increased as outlined in Section 11.5.2. which is associated with significant risk of systemic em- Supporting References: (609,610) bolism. In 1 report, in which patients with small throm- CLASS IIa bus burden (<0.8 cm2 on TEE imaging) had minimal 2. Fibrinolytic therapy is reasonable for thrombosed right-sided thrombolysis-related complications, those with large prosthetic heart valves (611,612). (Level of Evidence: B) thrombus burden ( 0.8 cm2) had a 2.4–fold higher rate of In nonrandomized, retrospective cohorts of thrombosed complications per 1.0 cm2 increase in size, making surgery mechanical or biological tricuspid valve prostheses, fibri- the optimal intervention. In patients with recent hemor- nolysis was as successful in normalization of hemody- rhagic stroke, surgery is a better choice because of the namics as surgical intervention. With fibrinolysis of bleeding risks associated with fibrinolysis. right-sided valve thrombosis, the resultant small pulmo- nary emboli appear to be well tolerated and systemic 11.7. Prosthetic Valve Stenosis emboli are uncommon. See Online Data Supplement 22 for more information on 11.7.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up fi brinolytic therapy. Reoperation to replace a prosthetic heart valve is a serious clinical event. It is usually required for moderate-to- 11.6.3. Intervention: Recommendations severe prosthetic dysfunction (structural and nonstruc- CLASS I tural), dehiscence, and prosthetic valve endocarditis 1. Emergency surgery is recommended for patients with a throm- (PVE). Causes of prosthetic valve stenosis that might bosed left-sided prosthetic heart valve with NYHA class III to IV require reoperation with a mechanical valve include symptoms (610,611,613). (Level of Evidence: B) chronic thrombus or pannus impinging on normal leaf- Prompt surgical treatment of a thrombosed prosthetic let occluder motion; for a bioprosthetic valve, leaflet heart valve is an effective treatment to ameliorate clinical fibrosis and calcification are the most common causes. symptoms and restore normal hemodynamics, with a Reoperation may also be needed for recurrent thrombo- successratecloseto90%inpatientswhodonothavea embolism, severe intravascular hemolysis, severe recurrent contraindication to surgical intervention. In contrast, a bleeding from anticoagulant therapy, and thrombosed meta-analysis of 7 studies that included 690 episodes of prosthetic valves. left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis showed a success In some patients, the size of the prosthetic valve that rate for restoring normal valve function of only about can be implanted results in inadequate blood flow to meet 70% in 244 cases treated with fibrinolytic therapy. There the metabolic demands of the patient, even when the was no difference in mortality between surgical and prosthetic valve itself is functioning normally. This situa- fibrinolytic therapy for left-sided prosthetic valve tion, called “patient-prosthesis mismatch” (defined as an thrombosis, but in addition to a higher success rate for indexed effective orifice area 0.85 cm2/m2 for aortic valve restoring normal valve function, surgery was associated with prostheses), is a predictor of a high transvalvular gradient, lower rates of thromboembolism (1.6% versus 16%), major persistent LV hypertrophy, and an increased rate of cardiac bleeding (1.4% versus 5%), and recurrent prosthetic valve events after AVR. The impact of a relatively small valve thrombosis (7.1% versus 25.4%). Although RCTs have area is most noticeable with severe patient-prosthesis not been performed, the weight of the evidence favors mismatch, defined as an orifice area <0.65 cm2/m2. surgical intervention for left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis Patient-prosthesis mismatch is especially detrimental in e128 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185 patients with reduced LVEF and may decrease the likeli- is rarely needed and should be considered only if a larger hood of resolution of symptoms and improvement in prosthetic valve or a valve type with better hemodynamics LVEF. Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be avoided or can be implanted. reduced by choosing a valve prosthesis that will have an adequate indexed orifice area, based on the patient’s 11.8. Prosthetic Valve Regurgitation body size and annular dimension. In some cases, annular enlargement or other approaches may be needed to 11.8.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up allow implantation of an appropriately sized valve or In patients with bioprosthetic valves who show evidence of avoidance of a prosthetic valve. With bileaflet mechanical prosthetic valve regurgitation, TTE is used to monitor the valves, patterns of blood flow are complex and significant appearance of the valve leaflets, valve hemodynamics, LV pressure recovery may be present; this may result in a high size, and systolic function, and to estimate pulmonary velocity across the prosthesis that should not be mis- pressures. The initial approach is TTE for evaluation of taken for prosthetic valve stenosis or patient-prosthesis antegrade valve velocities and pressure gradients. However, mismatch. TEE is essential for evaluation of suspected or known In patients with bioprosthetic valves who show evidence prosthetic mitral valve regurgitation. On TTE imaging, the of prosthetic valve stenosis, TTE is used to monitor the LA is shadowed by the valve prosthesis, obscuring evi- appearance of the valve leaflets, valve hemodynamics, LV dence of prosthetic regurgitation. TEE imaging provides size, and systolic function, and to estimate pulmonary clear images of the left atrial side of the mitral prosthesis pressures. Transthoracic imaging is usually adequate, with and is particularly useful for delineation of the site and TEE imaging reserved for patients with poor-quality im- severity of paravalvular regurgitation, evaluation of suit- ages. In patients with mechanical valves, fluoroscopy or ability for a percutaneous approach, and guidance during CT imaging can be helpful for showing disc motion. percutaneous closure procedures. CT may also visualize paravalvular pannus formation with either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. 11.8.2. Medical Therapy Supporting References: (527,528,544,615,616) Bioprosthetic valve regurgitation is typically due to leaflet degeneration and calcification. There are no medical 11.7.2. Medical Therapy therapies known to prevent bioprosthetic valve degenera- There are no medical therapies known to prevent bio- tion other than those integrated into the valve design. prosthetic valve degeneration other than those integrated Pathological regurgitation of a mechanical prosthetic valve into the valve design. Medical therapy is not effective for is typically due to a paravalvular leak or pannus limiting treatment of symptoms due to significant prosthetic valve normal occluder closure. Medical therapy is not effective stenosis, except with valve thrombosis, but standard for treatment of symptoms due to significant prosthetic medical therapy may help stabilize patients before surgical valve regurgitation, but standard approaches may help intervention and may be used for palliative care in patients stabilize patients before surgical intervention and may be who are not surgical candidates. used for palliative care in patients who are not surgical 11.7.3. Intervention: Recommendation candidates.
CLASS I 11.8.3. Intervention: Recommendations
1. Repeat valve replacement is indicated for severe symptomatic CLASS I (Level of Evidence: C) prosthetic valve stenosis. 1. Surgery is recommended for operable patients with mechanical The indications for surgical intervention for prosthetic heart valves with intractable hemolysis or HF due to severe prosthetic or paraprosthetic regurgitation (617,618). (Level of valve stenosis are the same as those for native stenosis of Evidence: B) the aortic or mitral valve. Surgery is primarily needed for bioprosthetic valve degeneration. In this situation, the The indications for surgical intervention for prosthetic choice of a new valve prosthesis depends on the same valve regurgitation include the same indications for native factorsasthoseforpatientsundergoingafirst valve regurgitation of the aortic or mitral valve. Specifically, in- replacement. The use of transcatheter valve prostheses to dicators are evidence of LV systolic dysfunction, including treat bioprosthetic valve stenosis with a “valve-in-valve” a low LVEF or progressive LV dilation; the same cut-off approach is promising but not yet fully validated. points should be used as defined for native valve disease. Mechanical valve stenosis is rare and typically due to Paravalvular regurgitation may also result in hemolytic valve thrombosis or pannus formation. If patient non- anemia; often this is mild and is managed medically but compliance contributed to valve thrombosis, it is prudent may be refractory in some patients. Paravalvular regurgi- to consider a bioprosthetic valve at the time of reopera- tation may be treated by replacing the dysfunctional valve tion. With attention to optimal valve selection, a second with a new valve or by repairing the paravalvular defect. surgical procedure for significant patient-prosthesis mismatch Supporting Reference: (619) JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e129 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
CLASS IIa 12. Infective Endocarditis 1. Surgery is reasonable for operable patients with severe symp- tomatic or asymptomatic bioprosthetic regurgitation. (Level of Evidence C) See Online Data Supplement 24 for more information on surgical outcomes. Bioprosthetic valve degeneration results in regurgitation 12.1. IE: Overview due to leaflet calcification and noncoaptation or leaflet degeneration with a tear or perforation. Even in asymp- IE has a high mortality rate, even with appropriate tomatic patients with severe bioprosthetic regurgitation, antibiotic therapy and surgical intervention, with an in- – valve replacement is reasonable due to the risk of sudden hospital mortality rate of 15% to 20% and a 1 year mor- clinical deterioration if further leaflet tearing occurs. The tality rate approaching 40%. The overall incidence of IE is choice of type of valve prosthesis in a patient undergoing 3 to 10 per 100,000 patient-years, with a higher prevalence reoperation depends on the same factors as those for pa- in older patients. In underdeveloped countries, IE is most tients undergoing a first valve replacement. The use of often associated with rheumatic heart disease. In developed transcatheter valve prostheses to treat bioprosthetic valve countries, IE is increasingly associated with prosthetic regurgitation with a “valve-in-valve” approach is prom- valve and intracardiac devices, with a risk of IE 50 times ising but is not yet fully validated. Paravalvular regurgi- higher in patients with a prosthetic valve compared with tation can also occur with a bioprosthetic valve. New the general population. IE also may be associated with paravalvular regurgitation may be due to IE or suture intravenous drug use, diabetes mellitus, or immunosup- disruption from mechanical causes. Blood cultures should pression. Despite differences in associated risk factors be obtained when new paravalvular regurgitation is and clinical outcomes, there are few differences in the detected. recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of NVE versus PVE. In this guideline, there is 1 set of recom- CLASS IIa mendations for diagnosis and management of all types of 2. Percutaneous repair of paravalvular regurgitation is reasonable IE. Recommendations for prevention of IE are included in in patients with prosthetic heart valves and intractable hemo- Section 2. lysis or NYHA class III/IV HF who are at high risk for surgery and have anatomic features suitable for catheter-based therapy Antimicrobial therapy is the cornerstone of therapy for fi when performed in centers with expertise in the procedure IE. The speci c antimicrobial agents and duration of ther- (620–622). (Level of Evidence B) apy should be guided by the susceptibility profile of the causative organism. Temporal and geographic variability Surgery is a viable therapeutic option in many patients in causative organisms and antimicrobial susceptibility with symptomatic paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation. profiles mandate concomitant management with an in- However, in some patients, surgery to replace a prosthetic fectious disease specialist. Details of specific antimicrobial fi valve with signi cant paravalvular regurgitation may carry regimens have previously been published by the AHA, fi signi cant operative risk due to the need for reoperation European Society of Cardiology, and British Society for and patient comorbidity. Recent studies have demon- Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and are not repeated in this strated clinical success with percutaneous approaches, in guideline. which operators use complex catheter techniques and a In addition to antibiotic therapy, early surgical inter- variety of occluder devices to reduce paravalvular regurgi- vention is often needed for effective treatment of infec- tation. Procedural success rates with percutaneous closure, tion and to manage the sequelae of valve leaflet and fi typically de ned by no more than mild residual regurgi- paravalvular tissue destruction. Decisions about whether tation and the absence of death and major complications, surgical intervention is needed and the optimal timing of have been reported to be 80% to 85% in centers with intervention are complex. Most of the indications for expertise in the procedure. Major complications, none- surgical intervention are the same for NVE and PVE and theless, occur in 9% of patients, mainly due to vascular are included in 1 recommendation for both when injury, cardiac perforation, and bleeding (procedural possible. Appropriate management of patients with IE < death, 2%). The degree of residual regurgitation directly requires a Heart Valve Team approach, initiated as soon affects symptom improvement and survival free of adverse as a diagnosis of probable or definite IE is confirmed, events. Treatment of HF symptoms is more successful with specialists in cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, and than treatment of hemolysis. Due to the complexity of infectious disease all involved in patient care and decision these procedures, consideration should be given to their making. performance in centers of expertise under the guidance of Supporting References: (52,278,630–635) a multidisciplinary team. 12.2. Infective Endocarditis Supporting References: (620–629) See Online Data Supplement 23 for more information on See Online Data Supplement 24 for more information on paravalvular regurgitation. surgical outcomes. e130 Nishimura et al. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline June 10, 2014:e57–185
12.2.1. Diagnosis and Follow-Up: Recommendations CLASS I 2. The Modified Duke Criteria should be used in evaluating a pa- See Figure 8 for recommendations for imaging studies in tient with suspected IE (Tables 24 and 25) (642–645). (Level of NVE and PVE. Evidence: B) CLASS I fi 1. At least 2 sets of blood cultures should be obtained in patients The Modi ed Duke Criteria (Tables 24 and 25) have at risk for IE (e.g., those with congenital or acquired VHD, been well validated in comparison to surgical or autopsy previous IE, prosthetic heart valves, certain congenital or heri- findings and in clinical outcomes in numerous studies in a table heart malformations, immunodeficiency states, or injec- wide spectrum of patients, including children, the elderly, tion drug users) who have unexplained fever for more than 48 prosthetic valve recipients, injection drug users, and non- hours (636) (Level of Evidence: B) or patients with newly diag- drug users, as well as patients in both primary and tertiary nosed left-sided valve regurgitation. (Level of Evidence: C) care settings. Clinical judgment and infectious disease Blood cultures are positive in 90% of patients with IE. specialty guidance are essential when deciding on the type In patients with a chronic (or subacute) presentation, 3 sets and duration of antibiotic therapy when these criteria of blood cultures should be drawn >6 hours apart at pe- suggest possible IE and in patients with unusual clinical ripheral sites before initiation of antimicrobial therapy. presentations or culture-negative endocarditis. About three However, this is not feasible or safe in patients with severe fourths of patients with IE are diagnosed within 30 days sepsis or septic shock. In this situation, 2 cultures at of the onset of infection, so classic clinical features, such separate times should allow for a secure microbiological as embolic or vasculitic skin lesions, renal disease due to diagnosis before initiation of antimicrobial therapy. More immune complex deposition, and immunologic abnor- important than the time interval of the cultures is the malities of IE, are often absent. In these cases, maintaining observance of strict aseptic technique, avoiding sam- a high level of clinical suspicion to the possibility of IE in pling from intravascular lines, and ensuring adequate vol- patients who are susceptible is paramount. ume of blood for culture sample. Routine incubation of Supporting References: (644,646–650) > blood cultures for 7 days is no longer necessary in the CLASS I era of continuous-monitoring blood culture systems and 3. Patients with IE should be evaluated and managed with nonculture-based technology. In the 10% of patients with consultation of a multispecialty Heart Valve Team including an culture-negative endocarditis, serologic testing to identify infectious disease specialist, cardiologist, and cardiac surgeon. the etiologic agent is appropriate. In surgically managed patients, this team should also include a Supporting References: (52,637–641) cardiac anesthesiologist (651). (Level of Evidence: B)
Figure 8. Recommendations for Imaging Studies in NVE and PVE
*Repeat TEE and/or TTE re-commended for re-evaluation of patients with IE and a change in clinical signs or symptoms and in patients at high risk of complications. CT indicates computed tomography; IE, infective endocarditis; NVE, native valve endocarditis; PVE, prosthetic valve endocarditis; S. aureus, Staphylococcus aureus; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography; and TTE, transthoracic echocardiography. JACC Vol. 63, No. 22, 2014 Nishimura et al. e131 June 10, 2014:e57–185 2014 AHA/ACC Valvular Heart Disease Guideline
Table 24. Diagnosis of IE According to the Proposed Table 25. Major and Minor Criteria in the Modified Duke Criteria Modified Duke Criteria for the Diagnosis of IE
Definite IE Major Criteria Pathological criteria 1. Blood culture positive for IE