Actual management of patients with asymptomatic aortic valve disease: How practice fits with guidelines
Background: Intervention is advised in selected asymptomatic patients with aortic valve disease. However, little is known regarding their actual management. Methods: The Euro Heart Survey was designed to evaluate practices. Severe isolated aortic stenosis (AS) was defined by a valve area ≤0.6 cm2/m2body surface area or mean gradient ≥50 mm Hg. Severe aortic regurgitation (AR) was defined by a grade ≥3/4. Patients were classified as asymptomatic when they were in New York Heart Association class I and were without angina. Decision to operate was analyzed by comparing patient characteristics with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommendations. Results: Of the 5001 patients, 136 had severe, isolated, and asymptomatic aortic valve disease (84 with AS and 52 with AR). Stress testing was performed in only 6 patients (4%). A decision to operate was taken in 45 patients (54%) with AS and 21 (40%) with AR. Indications for surgery were in accordance with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines in 57 patients (68%) with AS and in 41 (83%) with AR. However, the decision to operate was frequently based on class IIb recommendations in patients with AS. Intervention was "overused" in 18 patients with AS (21%) and in 5 (9%) with AR. Intervention was "underused" in 9 patients (11%) with AS and in 4 (8%) with AR. Conclusions: In asymptomatic patients with severe aortic valve disease, a decision to operate is frequently taken; and it is most often in agreement with guidelines, although often based on low-level recommendations.
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2005.12.031, hdl.handle.net/1765/35492|
|Journal||American Heart Journal|
Iung, B, Messika-Zeitoun, D, Cachier, A, Delahaye, F, Baron, G, Tornos, P, … Vahanian, A. (2007). Actual management of patients with asymptomatic aortic valve disease: How practice fits with guidelines. American Heart Journal, 153(4), 696–703. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.12.031