BACKGROUND There were gaps between guidelines and practice when surgery was the only treatment for aortic stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES This study analyzed the decision to intervene in patients with... Show moreBACKGROUND There were gaps between guidelines and practice when surgery was the only treatment for aortic stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES This study analyzed the decision to intervene in patients with severe AS in the EORP VHD (EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease) II survey. METHODS Among 2,152 patients with severe AS, 1,271 patients with high-gradient AS who were symptomatic fulfilled a Class I recommendation for intervention according to the 2012 European Society of Cardiology guidelines; the primary end point was the decision for intervention. RESULTS A decision not to intervene was taken in 262 patients (20.6%). In multivariate analysis, the decision not to intervene was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34 per 10-year increase; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.61; P = 0.002), New York Heart Association functional classes I and II versus III (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.30; P = 0.005), higher age adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 1.09 per 1-point increase; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.17; P = 0.03), and a lower transaortic mean gradient (OR: 0.81 per 10-mm Hg decrease; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.92; P < 0.001). During the study period, 346 patients (40.2%, median age 84 years, median EuroSCORE II [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II] 3.1%) underwent transcatheter intervention and 515 (59.8%, median age 69 years, median EuroSCORE II 1.5%) underwent surgery. A decision not to intervene versus intervention was associated with lower 6-month survival (87.4%; 95% CI: 82.0 to 91.3 vs 94.6%; 95% CI: 92.8 to 95.9; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A decision not to intervene was taken in 1 in 5 patients with severe symptomatic AS despite a Class I recommendation for intervention and the decision was particularly associated with older age and combined comorbidities. Transcatheter intervention was extensively used in octogenarians. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;78:2131-2143) (c) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Background: Valvular heart disease (VHD) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity and has been subject to important changes in management. The VHD II survey was designed by the... Show moreBackground: Valvular heart disease (VHD) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity and has been subject to important changes in management. The VHD II survey was designed by the EURObservational Research Programme of the European Society of Cardiology to analyze actual management of VHD and to compare practice with guidelines. Methods: Patients with severe native VHD or previous valvular intervention were enrolled prospectively across 28 countries over a 3-month period in 2017. Indications for intervention were considered concordant if the intervention was performed or scheduled in symptomatic patients, corresponding to Class I recommendations specified in the 2012 European Society of Cardiology and in the 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology VHD guidelines. Results: A total of 7247 patients (4483 hospitalized, 2764 outpatients) were included in 222 centers. Median age was 71 years (interquartile range, 62-80 years); 1917 patients (26.5%) were >= 80 years; and 3416 were female (47.1%). Severe native VHD was present in 5219 patients (72.0%): aortic stenosis in 2152 (41.2% of native VHD), aortic regurgitation in 279 (5.3%), mitral stenosis in 234 (4.5%), mitral regurgitation in 1114 (21.3%; primary in 746 and secondary in 368), multiple left-sided VHD in 1297 (24.9%), and right-sided VHD in 143 (2.7%). Two thousand twenty-eight patients (28.0%) had undergone previous valvular intervention. Intervention was performed in 37.0% and scheduled in 26.8% of patients with native VHD. The decision for intervention was concordant with Class I recommendations in symptomatic patients with severe single left-sided native VHD in 79.4% (95% CI, 77.1-81.6) for aortic stenosis, 77.6% (95% CI, 69.9-84.0) for aortic regurgitation, 68.5% (95% CI, 60.8-75.4) for mitral stenosis, and 71.0% (95% CI, 66.4-75.3) for primary mitral regurgitation. Valvular interventions were performed in 2150 patients during the survey; of them, 47.8% of patients with single left-sided native VHD were in New York Heart Association class III or IV. Transcatheter procedures were performed in 38.7% of patients with aortic stenosis and 16.7% of those with mitral regurgitation. Conclusions: Despite good concordance between Class I recommendations and practice in patients with aortic VHD, the suboptimal number in mitral VHD and late referral for valvular interventions suggest the need to improve further guideline implementation. Show less
Transcatheter heart valve interventions have transformed the outcomes of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) who are unfavourable candidates for surgery. Technological advances have allowed... Show moreTranscatheter heart valve interventions have transformed the outcomes of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) who are unfavourable candidates for surgery. Technological advances have allowed extension of these interventions to younger or lower risk patients and those with other forms of VHD and may in the future permit earlier treatment of VHD in less symptomatic patients or those with moderate disease. The balance of risks and benefits is likely to differ between lower and higher risk patients, and more evidence is needed to evaluate the net benefit of transcatheter technology in these groups As academic researchers clinicians industry and patient stakeholders collaborate to research these broader indications for transcatheter valve interventions, it is essential to address (i) device durability and deliverability, (ii) specific anatomical needs (e.g. bicuspid aortic valves, aortic regurgitation, mitral and tricuspid valve disease), (iii) operator training, and (iv) the reinforced importance of the multidisciplinary Heart Team. Show less
