Advertisement

Diagnosis and Management of Valvular Heart Disease

  • Katia Bravo-Jaimes
  • Sinan Tankut
  • Hanna Z. Mieszczanska
Chapter

Abstract

As the total population has been increasingly aging, the prevalence of valvular heart disease has increased to a level where it is now responsible for 10–20% of cardiac surgeries in the United States (Maganti et al., Mayo Clin Proc 85(5):483–500, 2010). Recent years have brought a remarkable improvement in the clinical outcome of patients with valvular heart disease. Our goal in this chapter is to highlight critical issues when evaluating these patients, including etiology and severity of valvular disease, presence or absence of symptoms, relationship of symptoms and prognosis in valvular disease, and risk-benefit ratio of possible interventions. Finally, we will provide the latest guidelines for treatment including surgical consultation and transcatheter interventions.

Keywords

Aortic stenosis (AS) Aortic regurgitation (AR) Mitral stenosis (MS) Mitral regurgitation (MR) Prosthetic valves 

References

  1. 1.
    Arora S, Misenheimer JA, Ramaraj R. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comprehensive review and present status. Tex Heart Inst J. 2017;44(1):29–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Otto C, Bonow R. Valvular heart disease. In: Mann DL, Zipes DP, Libby P, Bonow RO, Braunwald E, editors. Braunwald‘s heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2015. p. 1446–523.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maganti K, et al. Valvular heart disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(5):483–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet. 2009;373(9667):956–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimard BH, Safford RE, Burns EL. Aortic stenosis: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2016;93(5):371–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross J Jr, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1968;38(1 Suppl):61–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warkentin TE, Moore JC, Morgan DG. Gastrointestinal angiodysplasia and aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(11):858–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vincentelli A, et al. Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(4):343–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishimura RA, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(22):e57–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nishimura RA, Carabello BA. Hemodynamics in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory of the 21st Century. Circulation. 2012;125(17):2138–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tribouilloy C, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(20):1865–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baumgartner H, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):372–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rossebo AB, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(13):1343–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishimura RA, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 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 Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lytvyn L, et al. Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e014327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mack MJ, et al. Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA. 2013;310(19):2069–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonow RO, et al. Management strategies and future challenges for aortic valve disease. Lancet. 2016;387(10025):1312–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33(19):2451–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Otto CM, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of adults with aortic stenosis: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(10):1313–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh JP, et al. Prevalence and clinical determinants of mitral, tricuspid, and aortic regurgitation (the Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(6):897–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Enriquez-Sarano M, Tajik AJ. Clinical practice. Aortic regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(15):1539–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American College of Cardiology, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines 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 (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(3):e1–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonow RO, et al. Serial long-term assessment of the natural history of asymptomatic patients with chronic aortic regurgitation and normal left ventricular systolic function. Circulation. 1991;84(4):1625–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Athappan G, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1585–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gotzmann M, Lindstaedt M, Mugge A. From pressure overload to volume overload: aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J. 2012;163(6):903–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kodali SK, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1686–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stout KK, Verrier ED. Acute valvular regurgitation. Circulation. 2009;119(25):3232–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Myerson SG, et al. Aortic regurgitation quantification using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: association with clinical outcome. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1452–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zoghbi WA, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):303–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baumgartner H, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2017;28(36):2739–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sawaya FJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation in native valves and failing surgical bioprostheses: results from an International Registry Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(10):1048–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iung B, Vahanian A. Epidemiology of acquired valvular heart disease. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30(9):962–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ray R, Chambers J. Mitral valve disease. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68(10):1216–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chandrashekhar Y, Westaby S, Narula J. Mitral stenosis. Lancet. 2009;374(9697):1271–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Remenyi B, et al. Valvular aspects of rheumatic heart disease. Lancet. 2016;387(10025):1335–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilkins GT, et al. Percutaneous balloon dilatation of the mitral valve: an analysis of echocardiographic variables related to outcome and the mechanism of dilatation. Br Heart J. 1988;60(4):299–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones EC, et al. Prevalence and correlates of mitral regurgitation in a population-based sample (the Strong Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2001;87(3):298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Enriquez-Sarano M, Akins CW, Vahanian A. Mitral regurgitation. Lancet. 2009;373(9672):1382–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gaasch WH, Meyer TE. Left ventricular response to mitral regurgitation: implications for management. Circulation. 2008;118(22):2298–303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vesely MR, et al. Surgical and transcatheter mitral valve repair for severe chronic mitral regurgitation: a review of clinical indications and patient assessment. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(12).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Handa N, et al. Outcome of valve repair and the Cox maze procedure for mitral regurgitation and associated atrial fibrillation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118(4):628–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Herrmann HC, Maisano F. Transcatheter therapy of mitral regurgitation. Circulation. 2014;130(19):1712–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Michler RE, et al. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1932–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goldstein D, et al. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(4):344–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kelley C, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair: a new treatment for mitral regurgitation. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(3):399–404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Feldman T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous repair and surgery for mitral regurgitation: 5-year results of EVEREST II. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(25):2844–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    De Bonis M, et al. Optimal results immediately after MitraClip therapy or surgical edge-to-edge repair for functional mitral regurgitation: are they really stable at 4 years? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50(3):488–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pighi M, et al. Immediate and 12-month outcomes of ischemic versus nonischemic functional mitral regurgitation in patients treated with MitraClip (from the 2011 to 2012 Pilot Sentinel Registry of Percutaneous Edge-To-Edge Mitral Valve Repair of the European Society of Cardiology). Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(4):630–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zoghbi WA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography‘s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975–1014; quiz 1082-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bourguignon T, et al. Very late outcomes for mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: 25-year follow-up of 450 implantations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(5):2004–11. e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Puskas J, et al. Reduced anticoagulation after mechanical aortic valve replacement: interim results from the prospective randomized on-X valve anticoagulation clinical trial randomized Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(4):1202–10; discussion 1210–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Capodanno D, et al. Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2017;52(3):408–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katia Bravo-Jaimes
    • 1
  • Sinan Tankut
    • 2
  • Hanna Z. Mieszczanska
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Texas Health Sience Center/CardiologyHoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of Rochester Medical Center/Internal MedicineRochesterUSA
  3. 3.University of Rochester Medical Center/CardiologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations