Guidelines

ACC/AHA valvular heart disease update backs less-invasive approach


 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Recommended Reading

AHA scientific statement highlights cardiorenal benefit of new diabetes drugs
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Dapagliflozin’s CKD performance sends heart failure messages
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
NACMI: Clear benefit with PCI in STEMI COVID-19 patients
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Intravascular lithotripsy hailed as ‘game changer’ for coronary calcification
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
VOYAGER PAD: Paclitaxel-coated devices don’t increase mortality
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Valvular disease and COVID-19 are a deadly mix; don’t delay intervention
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Higher serum omega-3 tied to better outcome after STEMI
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
ACC expert consensus on post-TAVR arrhythmias
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
PCI success vs. meds only in diabetes may depend on LDL-C control
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
New-onset AFib common but unrecognized in the month after cardiac surgery
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management