2017 Focused Update for Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Summary of New Recommendations
- Endocarditis Prophylaxis
- Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation With VHD
- Aortic Stenosis
- Mitral Regurgitation
- Primary MR
- Secondary MR
- Prosthetic Valve Choice
- Prosthetic Valve Antithrombotic Therapy
- Bridging Therapy for Prosthetic Valves
- Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis
- Prosthetic Valve Stenosis and Regurgitation
- Infective Endocarditis
- Figures & Tables
- Info & Metrics
Valvular heart disease (VHD) is present in ≈2.5% of the general US population, with prevalence increasing to 11.7% to 13.3% in those aged >75 years.1 Valve‐disease–related deaths account for 1.9% of total US mortality. Of these, aortic and mitral valvular disease represent 99% of identified pathology and mortality. Valve surgeries account for 120 000 procedures per year in the United States.2 The number of surgeries continues to increase, particularly in the elderly population.2
In 2014, the joint American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the management of VHD underwent a thorough overhaul. Important changes included identifying stages of disease and stressing the importance of the specific mechanisms of valvular disorders.3 Since that iteration, extensive new data from recent trials have been published that have dramatically changed the way we treat valve disease. The ACC/AHA valve guidelines were updated in 2017.4 In this review, we aim to highlight the new recommendations in the updated guidelines and discuss the evidence supporting the changes. This summary will highlight the class (strength) of each recommendation as well as the level (quality) of supporting evidence (Table 1) and how these have been modified in the 2017 updated guidelines.
Endocarditis remains a serious problem for patients with VHD. In the updated 2017 valve guidelines, the patients recommended to receive antibiotic prophylaxis preceding dental procedures remain in alignment with the AHA guidelines published in 2007,5 in which prophylaxis is limited to only the highest‐risk individuals (Table 2). Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but devastating condition, with mortality rates of 16% at 30 days and 40% at 1 year.6, 7 Antibiotic prophylaxis is reliant on the idea that certain healthcare–related procedures have increased rates of transient bacteremia, and patients with certain conditions or prosthetic materials are at increased risk of infection.
Evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis is conflicting. A 2013 Cochrane study that included studies between 1946 and 2013 evaluated the effect on outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis preceding dental procedures. This analysis was inconclusive about the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis preceding dental procedures for the prevention of IE.8 Incidence of IE has steadily increased in the United States since 2000,9 but data are conflicting on whether this trend is related to the more‐restricted recommendation from the 2007 AHA/ACC guideline revisions.10, 11 The updated 2017 ACC/AHA valve guideline recommendations still include antibiotic prophylaxis for high‐risk groups, but with a weakened level of evidence (B to CL‐D). However, maintenance of the best oral hygiene to minimize seeding is emphasized. Also new in the updated guidelines is the emerging evidence that patients with prosthetic material after cardiac repair, such as annuloplasty rings and chords, have higher rates of infection than those with repairs without foreign material and have higher mortality.12, 13 In addition, patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are at equal or higher risk of IE compared with those that undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).14 As a result, such individuals are included in the list of patients eligible for antibiotic prophylaxis preceding dental procedures.
Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation With VHD
In the 2014 ACC/AHA valve guidelines, the recommendation for anticoagulation for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was limited to those with mitral stenosis. Recommendations for patients with other valve disorders were not addressed. The 2017 updated guidelines now include anticoagulation recommendations for a broader spectrum of valvular disorders (Table 3).
Data from multiple new randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prophylaxis in AF are now available.15, 16, 17 These new agents have broadened the anticoagulation options for a large number of patients. However, recommendations for the use of these agents in patients with VHD were previously not addressed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with VHD in the major DOAC trials all noted a similar or increased risk for thromboembolism in this population.15, 16, 17 Additionally, efficacy and safety of DOACs was similar to that of warfarin in this population. Notably, valvular exclusion criteria differed between trials, but significant mitral stenosis, valve disease requiring intervention, and mechanical heart valves were generally excluded.
The CHA2DS2‐VASc score was also incorporated in the 2017 updated guidelines, in alignment with modern AF management.18 A retrospective cohort analysis of 73 538 patients assessed risk factors associated with thromboembolism and found that the use of CHA2DS2‐VASc improved identification of low‐ and high‐risk populations.19 For those with a score of 2 or greater, anticoagulation is recommended. Those with bioprosthetic valves and valve repair are considered increased risk and should be anticoagulated regardless of score.
The 2017 updated guidelines recommend the use of a DOAC as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and native aortic valve disease, tricuspid valve disease, and mitral regurgitation (MR) and a CHA2DS2‐VASc score of 2 or greater (Class IIa, C‐LD).
In rheumatic mitral stenosis with AF, the 2017 updated guidelines continue to recommend VKAs as the agents of choice,20 given that this population has been excluded from the RCTs with DOACs. Although not recommended for therapy, a retrospective analysis of patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic mitral stenosis showed similar rates of stroke and bleeding in DOAC and VKA patients.21
In the 2104 AHA/ACC valve guidelines, there was recognition for the role of percutaneous interventions for treatment of severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients who carried significant surgical risks. TAVR was recommended for patients with severe AS who met the indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) who had prohibitive surgical risk (Class I, level of evidence [LOE] B) and as an alternative to surgery for those with high surgical risk (Class IIa, LOE B). In the updated 2017 guidelines, the recommendation for TAVR in both high‐ and prohibitive‐risk patients is now a Class 1, LOE A (Table 4). This change is supported by multiple high‐quality RCTs with multiyear follow‐up that showed nonsignificant differences in mortality between the TAVR and SAVR in these groups.22, 23 Since the 2014 guidelines, 2 recent randomized trials using TAVR have also shown noninferiority end points in intermediate‐risk patients. In the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) IIA trial, 2032 patients with symptomatic severe AS and intermediate risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score average, 5.8%) were randomized to TAVR or SAVR.24 At 2 years, no significant difference was found for death (TAVR 19.3% versus SAVR 21.1%; P=0.33), neurological events (12.7% versus 11%; P=0.25), or pacemaker implantation (11.8% versus 10.3%; P=0.22). Major bleeding (17.3% versus 47%; P<0.001) and new AF (11.3% versus 27.3%; P<0.001) were both lower in TAVR when compared with SAVR.24 In a prospective observational study, 1077 patients at intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.2) were compared with 1021 patients in the surgical arm of PARTNER 2A (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.4). At 1 year, TAVR was superior to SAVR for the composite primary end point (all‐cause mortality, stroke, or moderate‐to‐severe aortic regurgitation at 1 year). Evidence for discussion about TAVR versus SAVR options for those at intermediate surgical risk has changed the patient discussion. As a result, TAVR is now a reasonable alternative to SAVR for symptomatic patients with severe AS (Stage D) and an intermediate surgical risk, depending on patient‐specific procedural risks, values, and preferences (Class II1, LOE B‐R).
Of note, bicuspid, unicuspid, and noncalcified valves continue to be excluded from general recommendations for TAVR because they have been excluded from earlier trials, though there is ongoing interest in examining the role for percutaneous intervention.27, 28
The 2014 AHA/ACC valve guidelines stressed the importance of identifying the mechanism of MR given that management and outcomes differ between chronic primary and secondary MR (Figures 1 and 2). Additionally, in recognition of the increased risk of adverse outcomes with smaller effective regurgitant orifice29 in secondary MR, the 2014 guidelines defined severe MR using a lower quantification threshold for secondary MR. This led to a great deal of confusion in the imaging community in how to precisely grade MR. As a result, in the updated 2017 guidelines, quantification of MR severity was modified so that both primary and secondary MR are graded similarly. Specifically, for both primary and secondary MR, severe MR is defined as the effective regurgitant orifice ≥0.4 cm2 and regurgitant volume to ≥60 mL. However, careful recognition of the adverse outcomes observed with lower effective regurgitant orifice in secondary MR remains important.30 Focused measurement of MR is suggested for accurate diagnosis and staging.31, 32 The unified grading scheme is in alignment with the recent quantification of valvular regurgitation guidelines from the American Society of Echocardiography.31
In the updated 2017 valve guidelines, the majority of the recommendations for surgical or percutaneous intervention for patients with chronic, severe primary MR remain similar (Table 5). The exception is the new recommendation that mitral valve (MV) surgery is reasonable for asymptomatic patients (stage C1) and preserved left ventricular (LV) size and function (LV ejection fraction >60% and LV end systolic dimension <40 mm) with a progressive increase in LV size or decrease in LV ejection fraction on serial imaging studies (Class IIa, LOE C‐LD). This change is attributed to the realization that patients with severe MR who reach an ejection fraction ≤60% or LV end systolic dimension >40 mm have already developed LV systolic dysfunction. Watchful waiting has increasing come under scrutiny.33 The increased volume load associated with MR can lead to a vicious cycle of LV dilation and deformation of the mitral apparatus, and microscopic fibrosis. A number of studies questioned the idea of waiting for typical surgical triggers.34 Prospective analysis of 840 degenerative MV repair patients found that survival was near normal postoperative except in those with LV systolic dysfunction or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV symptoms.35 A retrospective analysis of 4253 patients with primary degenerative MR associated any symptoms beyond NYHA class I with lower rates of survival.36 When assessing registry data on 2097 patients with flail mitral leaflet and severe MR, early surgery was associated with reduced mortality and heart failure at 10 years compared with a match cohort.37 Additionally, if patients presented with pulmonary hypertension or LV dilation before surgery, postoperative mortality was increased.34 This increasing level of evidence has prompted the consideration for earlier intervention in the appropriate patients.
The 2014 guidelines recognized that for secondary MR, the focus of treatment was to correct the underlying cause of the MR whenever possible. If this is attributed to LV dysfunction, goal‐directed medical therapy and cardiac resynchronization therapy are class I indications. Management in secondary MR is challenging, given that the valve is structurally normal, and the underlying LV dysfunction is worsened by volume load from MR. Correcting the MR only alters 1 part of the disease and has shown limited effectiveness. The role of surgical intervention of secondary MR was restricted to those with NYHA class III/IV symptoms that persisted despite medical therapy (class IIb indication).
The 2017 updated guidelines have added a class IIa recommendation to choose chordal‐sparing MV replacement over annuloplasty with repair, but with the caveat that this should be limited to those with chronic severe MR that persists despite goal‐directed medical therapy (Table 6). This is heavily influenced by an RCT involving 251 patients with severe secondary MR who were randomized to MV repair versus replacement.30, 38 Favorable reverse remodeling rates (normalization of LV size and function) did not differ significantly between repair and replacement groups, with similar mortality rates (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46–1.35; P=0.39). Recurrent moderate‐to‐severe MR was significantly higher in the repair versus the replacement group (58.8% versus 3.8%; P<0.001), as was a higher rate of complications from heart failure and repeat cardiac hospitalizations.
A RCT involving patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing surgical revascularization randomized 301 patients to coronary artery bypass grafting and MV repair or coronary artery bypass grafting alone.39, 40 Patients with MV repair had significantly less MR at 2 years (11.2% versus 32.3%; P<0.001), but did not have improved reverse remodeling (z score, 0.38; P=0.71), or improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.45–1.83; P=0.78), with an increase in early neurological events (P=0.03).
The updated 2017 guidelines reflect the lack of clear benefit for repairing moderate MR in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (Table 6).
Prosthetic Valve Choice
Recognition of the strengths and limitations of different prosthetic valves, and the need to include patients on the discussion regarding the risks and benefits of each valve type, remains highly emphasized in the 2017 updated guidelines. A careful discussion with the patient on the benefits of a bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) versus a mechanical heart valve (MHV) remains a class I indication. However, longer‐term follow‐up on patients with prosthetic valves and new management options have been reflected in the 2017 updated guidelines (Table 7).
A strong influencing factor when choosing the type of valve prosthesis is patient age. For those under 50, the 2017 updated guidelines provide a IIa recommendation for MHV in order to reduce the need for reoperation. For the very young, a pulmonary autograft could be considered (Class IIb). For those over 70, BHV are recommended (Class IIa). For those between the ages of 50 and 70, either mechanical or BHV could be considered with patient preference or risk factors (need for anticoagulation, bleeding risk) weighing in the discussion (Class IIa).
Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have been published on valve selection. Consistently, BHV carry a higher risk of reoperation, primarily attributed to valve failure, most prominently beyond the 10‐ to 12‐year mark.41, 42 When comparing a 15‐year outcomes, survival and stroke risk were relatively similar regardless of valve choice. However, BHV was associated with a higher rate of reoperation (12.1%; CI 6.2–11 versus 6.9; CI, 4.2–9.6), but lower major bleeding (6.6%; CI 4.8–8.4 versus 13.0; CI, 9.9–16.1).43 A prospective cohort followed 310 patients randomized to BHV versus MHV out to 108±28 months and showed no difference in mortality, bleeding, or valve thrombosis, but with significant increases in valve failure (P=0.0001) and need for reoperation (P=0.0003).44 A RCT including veterans showed increased mortality in aortic BHV over MHV, primarily attributed to valve failure.41
Added to the modern discussion of valve choice is the potential for transcatheter valve‐in‐valve (VIV) procedures. Though the published data are limited in this group so far, the Valve‐In‐Valve International Database registry has published on 459 patients undergoing VIV procedures for bioprosthetic valve failure. Success rates are reasonable, with 93% survival at 30 days and significant improvement in functional class (to class I/II).45, 46 One‐year survival rates were 83%, and factors that were associated with mortality included a small surgical prosthesis (21 mm) and prosthetic stenosis as the primary indication for intervention (rather than regurgitation).45 These new data allow for additional topics of discussion when deciding on type of prosthesis with patients who need valve surgery aged between 50 and 70 years.
Prosthetic Valve Antithrombotic Therapy
Recommendations for anticoagulation strategies for prosthetic heart valves remains similar between the 2014 valve guidelines and the 2017 updated guidelines with a few exceptions (Table 8). Anticoagulation in patients with a mechanical heart is based on the monitored use of VKA with international normalized ratio (INR) ranges targeted based on factors that affect thrombogenic potential. For bileaflet tilting disc valves in the aortic position, the target INR is 2.5 (with a range of plus or minus 0.5). For valves in the mitral position, older mechanical aortic prosthesis, or mechanical AVR with additional risk factors for thromboembolism, the target INR is 3.0. Use of low‐dose aspirin is also recommended because it has found to reduce the residual risk of stroke for a small increase in bleeding risk. Additionally, acetylsalicylic acid continues to be reasonable for BHV for lifelong thromboembolic prophylaxis (Class IIa). Anticoagulation with a VKA to achieve an INR of 2.5 for at least 3 months and for as long as 6 months after surgical bioprosthetic MV replacement and AVR in patients with a low risk of bleeding remains a class IIa recommendation, but the level of evidence has been upgraded from C to B‐NR. This change is supported by the increased rate of thromboembolism, presumed to be related to implanted material until endothelialization occurs. TAVR valves are managed differently, because the early trials had used dual antiplatelet agents with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months postinsertion. Finally, there is now a Class III recommendation for DOACs in mechanical valves because increased rates of mechanical valve thrombosis were noted with these agents.
As TAVR use expanded and new data became available, increased recognition of clinical and subclinical leaflet thrombus was detected (Figure 3A and 3B). With imaging data from TAVR trials, reduced leaflet motion was observed in 7% to 40% of TAVR patients,47, 48, 49, 50 though clinically evident effects were rare (1%).50 VKA usage was found to effectively treat thrombosis.48, 49, 50 Additionally, those who were on VKAs for other reasons had significantly lower rates of valve thrombosis (10.7% versus 1.8%; relative risk, 6.09; 95% CI, 1.86–19.84).48, 50 Because of these data, VKA is considered reasonable for at least 3 months post‐TAVR in low‐bleeding‐risk patients.
A new, lower targeted INR was included for a specific mechanical AVR, the On‐X valve. A single randomized trial with 375 patients compared a regimen of acetylsalicylic acid for all, INR 2.0 to 3.0 for 3 months, and then either targeting an INR of 1.5 to 2.0 or 2.0 to 3.0. There was an increased rate of major bleeding in the standard INR group (3.26% versus 1.48%; P=0.047), with no significant difference in thrombotic events (relative risk, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81–3.17; P=0.178) observed early on in this small trial.51
Bridging Therapy for Prosthetic Valves
For patients with MHV who had scheduled procedures, the 2014 valve guidelines recommendations were based on opinions and limited retrospective data. These recommendations included continuing anticoagulation for minor procedures, temporary interruption for bileaflet mechanical aortic valves without other risk factors, and bridging with heparinoids for others with mechanical prosthesis.
Although the BRIDGE (Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients who Require Temporary Interruption of Warfarin Therapy for Elective Invasive Procedure or Surgery) trial excluded MHV, this randomized trial assigned patients on chronic anticoagulation to receive low‐molecular‐weight heparin versus placebo for bridging before elective surgery and found no significant difference in arterial thromboembolism, but a significant increase in major bleeding (relative risk, 0.41; CI, 0.20–0.78). This study raised concerns that by bridging with overlapping anticoagulation agents can increase bleeding risk without reducing risk of thromboembolism. In light of this evidence, the recommendation for bridging has been altered from I, LOE C, to a level IIa, LOE C‐LD (Table 9).
Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis
Obstruction of MHV and BHV can occur from either pannus growth or thrombus formation, or both. The 2014 guidelines recognized challenges in diagnosis. Transthoracic echo was a class I indication for assessment of severity and monitoring for resolution of thrombosis, with transesophageal echo for assessing valve motion and thrombus size (Class Ia; Figure 4A and 4B) and computed tomography or fluoroscopy used for adjunctive assessment (Class IIa).
Valve obstruction can be difficult to classify by transthoracic echo alone. The 2017 updated guidelines suggest urgent multimodality imaging for thorough assessment of valve function, leaflet motion, and to assess for the presence and size of thrombus (Class I; Table 10). Increasingly, the recognition for each modality's strengths and weaknesses should be taken into account for a complete assessment. Transthoracic echo provides prompt availability and excellent hemodynamic assessment, but the views of valve motion are often limited.52 Transesophageal echo can better assess valve motion, and thrombus or pannus formation and differentiation.53, 54 Additionally, prosthetic shadowing on transesophageal echo can limit assessment of aortic valves.55 Computed tomography can differentiate thrombus from pannus as well as assess thrombus size and valve motion.56, 57 Cinefluoroscopy has excellent ability to visualize valve motion for both diagnosis and treatment.52, 58
In the 2014 guidelines, medical management of valve thrombus was limited to recent onset (<14 days), NYHA class I to II, and small thrombus (<0.8 cm2) or for right‐sided thrombosis. Surgery was often the first and only option. Increasingly, thrombolytic therapy has been incorporated into clinical practice. Various regimens from ultrarapid to low‐dose continuous infusion have been attempted.59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 Ozkan showed efficacy and increased safety with an echo‐guided, no‐bolus, low‐dose, slow‐infusion regimen,60 and analysis of 114 patients treated with 1 or more sessions showed a high rate of success (90%) and low rate of complications (embolism 1.7%, major bleed 1.7%, and minor bleed 1.7%).59
The decision on management of this condition is complex. The 2017 updated guidelines provide a Class I recommendation for urgent therapy with either slow‐infusion, low‐dose fibrinolytics or emergency surgery diagnosis and consideration of patient‐ and site‐specific factors (Table 11).
Prosthetic Valve Stenosis and Regurgitation
Before modern percutaneously implantable valves, options for management of prosthetic valve stenosis and regurgitation were limited. In valvular stenosis, surgical replacement was essentially the exclusive intervention. These patients were not only higher risk because of increased age and repeat surgery, but also multiple surgical procedures were often combined.66
In the 2017 updated guidelines, surgery remains a Class I indication for operable patients with severe symptomatic prosthetic valve stenosis and for operable patients with MHV with intractable hemolysis or heart failure attributed to severe prosthetic or paraprosthetic regurgitation (Table 12). Surgery is also reasonable for asymptomatic patients with acceptable operative risk with severe BHV regurgitation (Class IIa, LOE C‐LD [updated from LOE C]).
At the time of publication of the 2014 guidelines, BHV thrombosis was not well appreciated. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis presents differently and is dealt with differently than mechanical valves. In general, VKAs are not continued in bioprosthesis patients without risk factors for thrombosis postsurgery. Historically, bioprosthetic valve thrombus is rare (0.5% in aortic position and 6% in mitral). However, in modern registry data with routine multimodality surveillance, aortic thrombus was identified in 14% of TAVR and 7% of SAVR patients.48 Symptoms, ranging from heart failure to stroke, remained rare (0.37–1%).48, 67
With the availability of transcather‐based valve therapies came alternatives to open surgical valve replacement.68 The Valve‐In‐Valve International Database registry has collected data on the use of transcatheter‐based VIV procedures. Data from the registry showed a 1‐year survival rate of 83%, with the majority of survivors having a significant symptom improvement (92% NYHA class I–II).45 A systematic review assessed 823 patients with transcatheter VIV procedure or surgical redo AVR.69 The VIV patients were older and had more comorbidities. Regardless, periprocedural mortality was similar (VIV 7.9% versus AVR 6.1%; P=0.35), with significantly less stroke (1.9% versus 8.8%; P=0.002) and major bleeding (6.9% versus 9.1%; P=0.014) though higher paravalvular leak rates (3.3% versus 0.4%; P=0.022). Interestingly, transvalvular gradients were not significantly different between groups (15.2 versus 13.5 mm Hg; P=0.55). Benefit has been noted in patients with stenosis, regurgitation, or mixed disease.
Careful assessment of both the valve and patient factors for consideration of the VIV procedure has been added to the 2017 updated guidelines for both bioprosthetic stenosis and regurgitation with a Class IIa indication (Table 12).
Bioprosthetic thrombus can present as increased leaflet thickening with restricted leaflet motion and increased valve gradients.70 This occurs much earlier than valve degeneration, most commonly identified at 1 to 2 years, though reported out to 6.5 years.67, 70 With VKA treatment, most patients experience resolution of thrombus, as well as hemodynamic and symptom improvement.48, 67, 70 In the 2017 updated guidelines, patients with suspected or confirmed BHV thrombosis who are hemodynamically stable and have no contraindications for anticoagulation should be treated with VKA (Class IIa; Table 12).
The recommendation for transcatheter‐based therapies noted in the 2014 guidelines as a potential treatment option for paravalvular regurgitation (Class IIa) for patients with high operative risk and intractable class III/IV heart failure or hemolysis, remains unchanged in the 2017 updated guidelines.
Endocarditis continues to be a major clinical problem with prohibitive mortality rates. The 2014 valve guidelines provided extensive guidance for management in the acute phase of the illness, including aggressive antibiotic therapy, early removal of devices, and surgical consultation with consideration on timing of surgery, should any be required. These recommendations remain unchanged in the 2017 updated guidelines (Table 13).
The 2017 updated guidelines address the timing of operation in patients with IE who have suffered a stroke. For left‐sided endocarditis, neurological complications are common (17–25%)7, 71 and associated with significant mortality (45% with versus 24% without neurological event).71 A previous retrospective study observed that patients with embolic stroke had lower rates of cerebral complications if surgery was delayed more than 4 weeks (10% at 2–4 weeks and 2.3% at >4 weeks).72 However, these early observational data were not risk adjusted. A more‐recent retrospective analysis of patients with IE complicated by ischemic stroke included risk‐adjusted analysis.73 In this small study, 198 patients underwent valve replacement surgery with 58 undergoing surgery within 7 days poststroke. The risk for in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio, 2.308; 95% CI, 0.94–5.65) or 1‐year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.138; 95% CI, 0.80–1.65) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Another observational study of 1345 patients showed that in patients with a hemorrhagic neurological event, mortality was prohibitive for those having surgery within 4 weeks (75%) and elevated, but slightly lower, for those after 4 weeks (40%).71 As a result of these studies, the 2017 updated guidelines recommend operation without delay for those patients with IE who need cardiac surgery and have suffered a stroke but have no intracranial hemorrhage or extensive neurological damage (Class IIb, LOE B‐NR) (Table 13).
The 2017 updated AHA/ACC valve guidelines provide treatment recommendations based on new data compiled since the 2014 document. Similar in both documents is the importance of including the patient as an active participant in the decision‐making process. Stages of disease and involvement of the heart valve team also remain unchanged. New options for treatment, particularly percutaneous modalities now offer patients more choices. The 2017 updated guidelines highlight the established and novel treatments with defined levels of recommendation and strength of evidence to aid healthcare providers in navigating the complex options now available to treat VHD.
- ↵Writing Group Members , Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, Das SR, de Ferranti S, Despres JP, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Isasi CR, Jimenez MC, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, Mackey RH, Magid DJ, McGuire DK, Mohler ER III., Moy CS, Muntner P, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Rodriguez CJ, Rosamond W, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Woo D, Yeh RW, Turner MB; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee . Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133:e38–e360.
- ↵Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Andrews RM. Characteristics of Operating Room Procedures in U.S. Hospitals, 2011. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014;2017.
- ↵Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP III., Guyton RA, O'Gara PT, Ruiz CE, Skubas NJ, Sorajja P, Sundt TM III., Thomas JD; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines . 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:e57–e185.
- ↵Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP III., Fleisher LA, Jneid H, Mack MJ, McLeod CJ, O'Gara PT, Rigolin VH, Sundt TM III., Thompson A. 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. Circulation. 2017;135:e1159–e1195.
- ↵Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Baddour LM, Levison M, Bolger A, Cabell CH, Takahashi M, Baltimore RS, Newburger JW, Strom BL, Tani LY, Gerber M, Bonow RO, Pallasch T, Shulman ST, Rowley AH, Burns JC, Ferrieri P, Gardner T, Goff D, Durack DT; American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group . Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation. 2007;116:1736–1754.
- ↵Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miró JM, Fowler VG Jr., Bayer AS, Karchmer AW, Olaison L, Pappas PA, Moreillon P, Chambers ST, Chu VH, Falcó V, Holland DJ, Jones P, Klein JL, Raymond NJ, Read KM, Tripodi MF, Utili R, Wang A, Woods CW, Cabell CH; International Collaboration on Endocarditis‐Prospective Cohort Study (ICE‐PCS) Investigators . Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis‐Prospective Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:463–473.
- ↵Glenny AM, Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD003813.
- ↵Pant S, Patel NJ, Deshmukh A, Golwala H, Patel N, Badheka A, Hirsch GA, Mehta JL. Trends in infective endocarditis incidence, microbiology, and valve replacement in the united states from 2000 to 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2070–2076.
- ↵Mackie AS, Liu W, Savu A, Marelli AJ, Kaul P. Infective endocarditis hospitalizations before and after the 2007 American Heart Association prophylaxis guidelines. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32:942–948.
- ↵Amat‐Santos IJ, Messika‐Zeitoun D, Eltchaninoff H, Kapadia S, Lerakis S, Cheema AN, Gutierrez‐Ibanes E, Munoz‐Garcia AJ, Pan M, Webb JG, Herrmann HC, Kodali S, Nombela‐Franco L, Tamburino C, Jilaihawi H, Masson JB, de Brito FS Jr., Ferreira MC, Lima VC, Mangione JA, Iung B, Vahanian A, Durand E, Tuzcu EM, Hayek SS, Angulo‐Llanos R, Gomez‐Doblas JJ, Castillo JC, Dvir D, Leon MB, Garcia E, Cobiella J, Vilacosta I, Barbanti M, R Makkar M, Ribeiro HB, Urena M, Dumont E, Pibarot P, Lopez J, San Roman A, Rodes‐Cabau J. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation. 2015;131:1566–1574.
- ↵Breithardt G, Baumgartner H, Berkowitz SD, Hellkamp AS, Piccini JP, Stevens SR, Lokhnygina Y, Patel MR, Halperin JL, Singer DE, Hankey GJ, Hacke W, Becker RC, Nessel CC, Mahaffey KW, Fox KA, Califf RM; ROCKET AF Steering Committee & Investigators . Clinical characteristics and outcomes with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in patients with non‐valvular atrial fibrillation but underlying native mitral and aortic valve disease participating in the ROCKET AF trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:3377–3385.
- ↵Ezekowitz MD, Nagarakanti R, Noack H, Brueckmann M, Litherland C, Jacobs M, Clemens A, Reilly PA, Connolly SJ, Yusuf S, Wallentin L. Comparison of dabigatran and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: the RE‐LY trial (randomized evaluation of long‐term anticoagulant therapy). Circulation. 2016;134:589–598.
- ↵Avezum A, Lopes RD, Schulte PJ, Lanas F, Gersh BJ, Hanna M, Pais P, Erol C, Diaz R, Bahit MC, Bartunek J, De Caterina R, Goto S, Ruzyllo W, Zhu J, Granger CB, Alexander JH. Apixaban in comparison with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: findings from the apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial. Circulation. 2015;132:624–632.
- ↵January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC, Conti JB, Ellinor PT, Ezekowitz MD, Field ME, Murray KT, Sacco RL, Stevenson WG, Tchou PJ, Tracy CM, Yancy CW. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2246–2280.
- ↵Olesen JB, Lip GY, Hansen ML, Hansen PR, Tolstrup JS, Lindhardsen J, Selmer C, Ahlehoff O, Olsen AM, Gislason GH, Torp‐Pedersen C. Validation of risk stratification schemes for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2011;342:d124.
- ↵Pérez‐Gómez F, Alegría E, Berjón J, Iriarte JA, Zumalde J, Salvador A, Mataix L; NASPEAF Investigators . Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1557–1566.
- ↵Noseworthy PA, Yao X, Shah ND, Gersh BJ. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non‐vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease. Int J Cardiol. 2016;209:181–183.
- ↵Deeb GM, Reardon MJ, Chetcuti S, Patel HJ, Grossman PM, Yakubov SJ, Kleiman NS, Coselli JS, Gleason TG, Lee JS, Hermiller JB Jr., Heiser J, Merhi W, Zorn GL III., Tadros P, Robinson N, Petrossian G, Hughes GC, Harrison JK, Maini B, Mumtaz M, Conte J, Resar J, Aharonian V, Pfeffer T, Oh JK, Qiao H, Adams DH, Popma JJ; CoreValve US Clinical Investigators . 3‐year outcomes in high‐risk patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2565–2574.
- ↵Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, Miller DC, Moses JW, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Douglas PS, Anderson WN, Blackstone EH, Kodali SK, Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Kapadia S, Bavaria J, Hahn RT, Thourani VH, Babaliaros V, Pichard A, Herrmann HC, Brown DL, Williams M, Akin J, Davidson MJ, Svensson LG; PARTNER 1 trial investigators Pt . 5‐year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2477–2484.
- ↵Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, Thourani VH, Tuzcu EM, Miller DC, Herrmann HC, Doshi D, Cohen DJ, Pichard AD, Kapadia S, Dewey T, Babaliaros V, Szeto WY, Williams MR, Kereiakes D, Zajarias A, Greason KL, Whisenant BK, Hodson RW, Moses JW, Trento A, Brown DL, Fearon WF, Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Jaber WA, Anderson WN, Alu MC, Webb JG; PARTNER 2 Investigators . Transcatheter or surgical aortic‐valve replacement in intermediate‐risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–1620.
- ↵Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, Nissen H, Kjeldsen BJ, Petursson P, Chang Y, Franzen OW, Engstrom T, Clemmensen P, Hansen PB, Andersen LW, Olsen PS, Sondergaard L. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: 1‐year results from the all‐comers NOTION randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2184–2194.
- ↵Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, Ngo TA, Nissen H, Kjeldsen BJ, Chang Y, Hansen PB, Olsen PS, Sondergaard L. No clinical effect of prosthesis‐patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate‐ and low‐risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid‐term follow‐up: an analysis from the NOTION trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50:721–728.
- ↵Yoon SH, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O, Delgado V, Arai T, Ziegelmueller J, Barbanti M, Sharma R, Perlman GY, Khalique OK, Holy EW, Saraf S, Deuschl F, Fujita B, Ruile P, Neumann FJ, Pache G, Takahashi M, Kaneko H, Schmidt T, Ohno Y, Schofer N, Kong WK, Tay E, Sugiyama D, Kawamori H, Maeno Y, Abramowitz Y, Chakravarty T, Nakamura M, Kuwata S, Yong G, Kao HL, Lee M, Kim HS, Modine T, Wong SC, Bedgoni F, Testa L, Teiger E, Butter C, Ensminger SM, Schaefer U, Dvir D, Blanke P, Leipsic J, Nietlispach F, Abdel‐Wahab M, Chevalier B, Tamburino C, Hildick‐Smith D, Whisenant BK, Park SJ, Colombo A, Latib A, Kodali SK, Bax JJ, Sondergaard L, Webb JG, Lefevre T, Leon MB, Makkar R. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2579–2589.
- ↵Perlman GY, Blanke P, Dvir D, Pache G, Modine T, Barbanti M, Holy EW, Treede H, Ruile P, Neumann FJ, Gandolfo C, Saia F, Tamburino C, Mak G, Thompson C, Wood D, Leipsic J, Webb JG. Bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: favorable early outcomes with a next‐generation transcatheter heart valve in a multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:817–824.
- ↵Acker MA, Parides MK, Perrault LP, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, Voisine P, Smith PK, Hung JW, Blackstone EH, Puskas JD, Argenziano M, Gammie JS, Mack M, Ascheim DD, Bagiella E, Moquete EG, Ferguson TB, Horvath KA, Geller NL, Miller MA, Woo YJ, D'Alessandro DA, Ailawadi G, Dagenais F, Gardner TJ, O'Gara PT, Michler RE, Kron IL; CTSN . Mitral‐valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:23–32.
- ↵Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, Enriquez‐Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Hahn RT, Han Y, Hung J, Lang RM, Little SH, Shah DJ, Shernan S, Thavendiranathan P, Thomas JD, Weissman NJ. 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;30:303–371.
- ↵Thavendiranathan P, Phelan D, Collier P, Thomas JD, Flamm SD, Marwick TH. Quantitative assessment of mitral regurgitation: how best to do it. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:1161–1175.
- ↵Kang DH, Kim JH, Rim JH, Kim MJ, Yun SC, Song JM, Song H, Choi KJ, Song JK, Lee JW. Comparison of early surgery versus conventional treatment in asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation. Circulation. 2009;119:797–804.
- ↵Enriquez‐Sarano M, Suri RM, Clavel MA, Mantovani F, Michelena HI, Pislaru S, Mahoney DW, Schaff HV. Is there an outcome penalty linked to guideline‐based indications for valvular surgery? Early and long‐term analysis of patients with organic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:50–58.
- ↵David TE, Armstrong S, McCrindle BW, Manlhiot C. Late outcomes of mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation due to degenerative disease. Circulation. 2013;127:1485–1492.
- ↵Suri RM, Vanoverschelde JL, Grigioni F, Schaff HV, Tribouilloy C, Avierinos JF, Barbieri A, Pasquet A, Huebner M, Rusinaru D, Russo A, Michelena HI, Enriquez‐Sarano M. Association between early surgical intervention vs watchful waiting and outcomes for mitral regurgitation due to flail mitral valve leaflets. JAMA. 2013;310:609–616.
- ↵Goldstein D, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, Ailawadi G, Parides MK, Perrault LP, Hung JW, Voisine P, Dagenais F, Gillinov AM, Thourani V, Argenziano M, Gammie JS, Mack M, Demers P, Atluri P, Rose EA, O'Sullivan K, Williams DL, Bagiella E, Michler RE, Weisel RD, Miller MA, Geller NL, Taddei‐Peters WC, Smith PK, Moquete E, Overbey JR, Kron IL, O'Gara PT, Acker MA; CTSN . Two‐year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:344–353.
- ↵Michler RE, Smith PK, Parides MK, Ailawadi G, Thourani V, Moskowitz AJ, Acker MA, Hung JW, Chang HL, Perrault LP, Gillinov AM, Argenziano M, Bagiella E, Overbey JR, Moquete EG, Gupta LN, Miller MA, Taddei‐Peters WC, Jeffries N, Weisel RD, Rose EA, Gammie JS, DeRose JJ Jr., Puskas JD, Dagenais F, Burks SG, El‐Hamamsy I, Milano CA, Atluri P, Voisine P, O'Gara PT, Gelijns AC; CTSN . Two‐year outcomes of surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1932–1941.
- ↵Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, Voisine P, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Hung JW, Parides MK, Ailawadi G, Perrault LP, Acker MA, Argenziano M, Thourani V, Gammie JS, Miller MA, Page P, Overbey JR, Bagiella E, Dagenais F, Blackstone EH, Kron IL, Goldstein DJ, Rose EA, Moquete EG, Jeffries N, Gardner TJ, O'Gara PT, Alexander JH, Michler RE; Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network Investigators . Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2178–2188.
- ↵Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152–1158.
- ↵Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, Iorio F, Pepino P, Spampinato N, Vosa C. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1862–1868.
- ↵Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, Pasic M, Waksman R, Kodali S, Barbanti M, Latib A, Schaefer U, Rodes‐Cabau J, Treede H, Piazza N, Hildick‐Smith D, Himbert D, Walther T, Hengstenberg C, Nissen H, Bekeredjian R, Presbitero P, Ferrari E, Segev A, de Weger A, Windecker S, Moat NE, Napodano M, Wilbring M, Cerillo AG, Brecker S, Tchetche D, Lefevre T, De Marco F, Fiorina C, Petronio AS, Teles RC, Testa L, Laborde JC, Leon MB, Kornowski R; Valve‐in‐Valve International Data Registry Investigators . Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312:162–170.
- ↵Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, Bleiziffer S, Hildick‐Smith D, Colombo A, Descoutures F, Hengstenberg C, Moat NE, Bekeredjian R, Napodano M, Testa L, Lefevre T, Guetta V, Nissen H, Hernandez JM, Roy D, Teles RC, Segev A, Dumonteil N, Fiorina C, Gotzmann M, Tchetche D, Abdel‐Wahab M, De Marco F, Baumbach A, Laborde JC, Kornowski R. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve‐in‐valve registry. Circulation. 2012;126:2335–2344.
- ↵Egbe AC, Pislaru SV, Pellikka PA, Poterucha JT, Schaff HV, Maleszewski JJ, Connolly HM. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis versus structural failure: clinical and echocardiographic predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2285–2294.
- ↵Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, Kofoed KF, de Backer O, Asch FM, Ruiz CE, Olsen NT, Trento A, Friedman J, Berman D, Cheng W, Kashif M, Jelnin V, Kliger CA, Guo H, Pichard AD, Weissman NJ, Kapadia S, Manasse E, Bhatt DL, Leon MB, Sondergaard L. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2015–2024.
- ↵Hansson NC, Grove EL, Andersen HR, Leipsic J, Mathiassen ON, Jensen JM, Jensen KT, Blanke P, Leetmaa T, Tang M, Krusell LR, Klaaborg KE, Christiansen EH, Terp K, Terkelsen CJ, Poulsen SH, Webb J, Botker HE, Norgaard BL. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: incidence, predisposing factors, and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:2059–2069.
- ↵Puskas J, Gerdisch M, Nichols D, Quinn R, Anderson C, Rhenman B, Fermin L, McGrath M, Kong B, Hughes C, Sethi G, Wait M, Martin T, Graeve A; PROACT Investigators . 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;147:1202–1210; discussion 1210–1211.
- ↵Barbetseas J, Nagueh SF, Pitsavos C, Toutouzas PK, Quinones MA, Zoghbi WA. Differentiating thrombus from pannus formation in obstructed mechanical prosthetic valves: an evaluation of clinical, transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic parameters. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1410–1417.
- ↵Muratori M, Montorsi P, Teruzzi G, Celeste F, Doria E, Alamanni F, Pepi M. Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative assessment of mechanical prostheses leaflet motion by transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in suspected prosthetic valve dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:94–100.
- ↵Gunduz S, Ozkan M, Kalcik M, Gursoy OM, Astarcioglu MA, Karakoyun S, Aykan AC, Biteker M, Gokdeniz T, Kaya H, Yesin M, Duran NE, Sevinc D, Guneysu T. Sixty‐four‐section cardiac computed tomography in mechanical prosthetic heart valve dysfunction: thrombus or pannus. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e003246.
- ↵Suh YJ, Lee S, Im DJ, Chang S, Hong YJ, Lee HJ, Hur J, Choi BW, Chang BC, Shim CY, Hong GR, Kim YJ. Added value of cardiac computed tomography for evaluation of mechanical aortic valve: emphasis on evaluation of pannus with surgical findings as standard reference. Int J Cardiol. 2016;214:454–460.
- ↵Ozkan M, Gunduz S, Gursoy OM, Karakoyun S, Astarcioglu MA, Kalcik M, Aykan AC, Cakal B, Bayram Z, Oguz AE, Erturk E, Yesin M, Gokdeniz T, Duran NE, Yildiz M, Esen AM. Ultraslow thrombolytic therapy: a novel strategy in the management of prosthetic mechanical valve thrombosis and the predictors of outcome: the ultra‐slow PROMETEE trial. Am Heart J. 2015;170:409–418.
- ↵Ozkan M, Cakal B, Karakoyun S, Gursoy OM, Cevik C, Kalcik M, Oguz AE, Gunduz S, Astarcioglu MA, Aykan AC, Bayram Z, Biteker M, Kaynak E, Kahveci G, Duran NE, Yildiz M. Thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of prosthetic heart valve thrombosis in pregnancy with low‐dose, slow infusion of tissue‐type plasminogen activator. Circulation. 2013;128:532–540.
- ↵Ozkan M, Gunduz S, Biteker M, Astarcioglu MA, Cevik C, Kaynak E, Yildiz M, Oguz E, Aykan AC, Erturk E, Karavelioglu Y, Gokdeniz T, Kaya H, Gursoy OM, Cakal B, Karakoyun S, Duran N, Ozdemir N. Comparison of different TEE‐guided thrombolytic regimens for prosthetic valve thrombosis: the TROIA trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:206–216.
- ↵Karthikeyan G, Math RS, Mathew N, Shankar B, Kalaivani M, Singh S, Bahl VK, Hirsh J, Eikelboom JW. Accelerated infusion of streptokinase for the treatment of left‐sided prosthetic valve thrombosis: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2009;120:1108–1114.
- ↵Caceres‐Loriga FM, Perez‐Lopez H, Morlans‐Hernandez K, Facundo‐Sanchez H, Santos‐Gracia J, Valiente‐Mustelier J, Rodiles‐Aldana F, Marrero‐Mirayaga MA, Betancourt BY, Lopez‐Saura P. Thrombolysis as first choice therapy in prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. A study of 68 patients. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2006;21:185–190.
- ↵Naji P, Griffin BP, Sabik JF, Kusunose K, Asfahan F, Popovic ZB, Rodriguez LL, Lytle BW, Grimm RA, Svensson LG, Desai MY. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis undergoing redo surgical aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2015;132:1953–1960.
- ↵García‐Cabrera E, Fernández‐Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Ivanova‐Georgieva R, Noureddine M, Plata A, Lomas JM, Gálvez‐Acebal J, Hidalgo‐Tenorio C, Ruíz‐Morales J, Martínez‐Marcos FJ, Reguera JM, de la Torre‐Lima J, de Alarcón González A; Group for the Study of Cardiovascular Infections of the Andalusian Society of Infectious Diseases; Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases . Neurological complications of infective endocarditis: risk factors, outcome, and impact of cardiac surgery: a multicenter observational study. Circulation. 2013;127:2272–2284.
- ↵Barsic B, Dickerman S, Krajinovic V, Pappas P, Altclas J, Carosi G, Casabe JH, Chu VH, Delahaye F, Edathodu J, Fortes CQ, Olaison L, Pangercic A, Patel M, Rudez I, Tamin SS, Vincelj J, Bayer AS, Wang A; International Collaboration on Endocarditis‐Prospective Cohort Study Investigators . Influence of the timing of cardiac surgery on the outcome of patients with infective endocarditis and stroke. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:209–217.
- Endocarditis Prophylaxis
- Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation With VHD
- Aortic Stenosis
- Mitral Regurgitation
- Primary MR
- Secondary MR
- Prosthetic Valve Choice
- Prosthetic Valve Antithrombotic Therapy
- Bridging Therapy for Prosthetic Valves
- Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis
- Prosthetic Valve Stenosis and Regurgitation
- Infective Endocarditis
- Figures & Tables
- Info & Metrics