Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aortic regurgitation (AR) contain recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed clinical practice guidelines and summarized similarities and differences in the recommendations as well as gaps in evidence on the management of AR. We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1 January 2011 to 1 September 2021), Google Scholar, and websites of relevant organizations for contemporary guidelines that were rigorously developed as assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Three guidelines met our inclusion criteria. There was consensus on the definition of severe AR and use of echocardiography and of multimodality imaging for diagnosis, with emphasis on comprehensive assessment by the heart valve team to assess suitability and choice of intervention. Surgery is indicated in all symptomatic patients and aortic valve replacement is the cornerstone of treatment. There is consistency in the frequency of follow-up of patients, and safety of non-cardiac surgery in patients without indications for surgery. Discrepancies exist in recommendations for 3D imaging and the use of global longitudinal strain and biomarkers. Cut-offs for left ventricular ejection fraction and size for recommending surgery in severe asymptomatic AR also vary. There are no specific AR cut-offs for high-risk surgery and the role of percutaneous intervention is yet undefined. Recommendations on the treatment of mixed valvular disease are sparse and lack robust prospective data.

Aortic regurgitation management: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations

Ricci F.;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aortic regurgitation (AR) contain recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed clinical practice guidelines and summarized similarities and differences in the recommendations as well as gaps in evidence on the management of AR. We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1 January 2011 to 1 September 2021), Google Scholar, and websites of relevant organizations for contemporary guidelines that were rigorously developed as assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Three guidelines met our inclusion criteria. There was consensus on the definition of severe AR and use of echocardiography and of multimodality imaging for diagnosis, with emphasis on comprehensive assessment by the heart valve team to assess suitability and choice of intervention. Surgery is indicated in all symptomatic patients and aortic valve replacement is the cornerstone of treatment. There is consistency in the frequency of follow-up of patients, and safety of non-cardiac surgery in patients without indications for surgery. Discrepancies exist in recommendations for 3D imaging and the use of global longitudinal strain and biomarkers. Cut-offs for left ventricular ejection fraction and size for recommending surgery in severe asymptomatic AR also vary. There are no specific AR cut-offs for high-risk surgery and the role of percutaneous intervention is yet undefined. Recommendations on the treatment of mixed valvular disease are sparse and lack robust prospective data.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Galusko_AR_EHJQCCO_2022.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Review
Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Dimensione 542.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
542.71 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/781758
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact