Authors

• Lars Søndergaard — University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
• Antti Saraste — Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland
• Christina Christersson — Uppsala, Sweden
• Alec Vahanian — University Paris VII, Paris, France

DOI

Full Text

## Preamble A new joint European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons (EACTS) guidelines on management of valvular heart disease (VHD) was published in 2017. (1) These guidelines are more focused, and are linked to the upcoming ESC textbook. The main changes concern the role of transcatheter valve treatment, indications for surgery as well as medical therapy. The guidelines present a new concept of Heart Valve Centres with recommended requirements, including multidisciplinary teams with competencies in various interventions and diagnostic techniques for VHD, the availability of important collaborative services, standardized processes and recording of performance data. (2) Some of changes in the latest guidelines are highlighted in this article. ## Epidemiology of valvular disease The association between traditional cardiovascular risk factors and incident, severe aortic stenosis (AS) was highlighted in a large unselected elderly population. (3) Another study found that in a population-based prospective cohort with 1297 incident cases of AS during 15 years of follow-up both overall obesity reflected by body mass index (BMI) and abdominal adiposity based on waist circumference were positively associated with incidence of AS, with similar associations in men and women. (4) Individuals with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 had a significantly [hazard ratio (HR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–2.23] increased risk for incident AS compared with lean individuals. The increasing prevalence of obesity may both determine the increased prevalence of AS and be an important modifiable risk factor for AS. Using data from national statistics, the prevalence of VHD in ESC member countries is approximately 13.3 million. (5) The access to both surgical and transcatheter heart valve treatment is better developed in high-income when compared with middle-income ESC member countries. The health-related burden of rheumatic heart disease has declined worldwide, but high rates of disease persist in some of the developing countries. In a systematically review of fatal and non-fatal rheumatic heart disease over the last 25 years, it was estimated that global age-standardized mortality due to the disease fell by 47.8% from 1990 to 2015. (6) However, there were still more than 30 million cases of rheumatic heart disease and around 300 000 deaths in 2015; the highest mortality was observed in Oceania, South Asia, and central sub-Saharan Africa. ## Aortic stenosis Echocardiography is the first-line imaging technique for the evaluation of patients with VHD, but other imaging modalities can be used to obtain complementary information, and to aid risk stratification in individual patients. (7) Aortic valve calcification detected by cardiac computed tomography (CT) is listed in the guidelines among criteria for differentiating severe low-flow, low-gradient AS from moderate disease, particularly in the presence of preserved ejection fraction (EF). The 2017 VHD guidelines also contain a new recommendation that CT coronary angiography should be considered as an alternative to invasive angiography before valve surgery in patients with a low probability of coronary artery disease; it may also be considered when invasive coronary angiography is either technically not feasible or associated with increased risk. The management of asymptomatic severe AS remains controversial. However, in the 2017 VHD guidelines, markedly elevated plasma natriuretic peptide levels or severe pulmonary hypertension without other explanation have been added as risk factors warranting consideration for surgery in asymptomatic severe AS with normal EF. Currently, aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not indicated in these patients, but it will be evaluated in the randomized EARLY TAVR trial (NCT03042104) and EVoLVeD trial (NCT03094143). An observational study demonstrated that patients with concomitant moderate AS and left ventricle systolic dysfunction are at high risk for clinical events, (8) which is the focus of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-UNLOAD trial (NCT02661451). Two studies demonstrated the utility of clinical scores for detecting frailty and predicting 1-year mortality after AVR in elderly patients. (9, 10) The burden of mitral annular calcification is also associated with outcomes after AVR; there are now similar data in patients undergoing aortic valve implantation (TAVI). (11) Severe mitral annular calcification was encountered in 10% of patients; this was an independent predictor of both overall mortality (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.19–4.66) and permanent pacemaker implantation [odds ratio (OR) 2.83, 95% CI 1.08–7.47] following TAVI. Data from surgical registries describe an increase in the use of biological aortic valves even in the age groups were mechanical valves are usually recommended, **Figure 1**. (12, 13) There is still a gap in evidence regarding the optimal age cut-off at which a biological valve prosthesis should be preferred. In a propensity-matched study of patients aged 50–69 years treated with biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses, survival was higher in the group with mechanical prostheses (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.66), and the risk of reoperation was lower. (13) In a sub-analysis the benefit persisted in those aged 50–59 years, but not for those aged 60–69 years. In a meta-analysis of patients aged 18–55 years treated with mechanical valve prostheses, microsimulation was used to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event-risk. (14) Estimated life expectancy was shortened in patients with mechanical prostheses, and the risk of thromboembolism and re-intervention was 18% and 10%, respectively. A recent study stratified patients into different age groups on the basis of valve position [aortic vs. mitral valve (MV)], and found the long-term mortality benefit associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biological prosthesis, persisted until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement, and until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement. (15) Figure 1. Number of aortic valve replacements per year. Number of patients aged 50–69 years who had undergone aortic valve replacements with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in Sweden between 1997 and 2013. From Glaser *et al.* (13) This figure has been reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. The choice of intervention with TAVI and surgical AVR (SAVR) depends on careful individual evaluation by the Heart Team, taking into consideration the risks and benefits of each approach (**Table 1**). Although, TAVI is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe AS who are at high surgical risk, the SURTAVI trial provided additional data concerning intermediate risk patients. (16) The SURTAVI trial included 1746 patients and showed that TAVI with a self-expanding prosthesis was non-inferior to SAVR with regards to estimated incidence of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke at 24 months (12.6% vs. 14.0%). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVI had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and need for pacemaker implantation. ### TABLE 1: Aspects to be considered by the Heart Team for the decision between surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at increased surgical risk. | **Clinical characteristics** — STS/EuroSCORE II a — STS/EuroSCORE II ≥4% (logistic EuroSCORE I ≥10%)a — Presence of severe comorbidity (not adequately reflected by scores) — Age aSTS score (calculator: http://riskcalc.sts.org/stswebriskcalc/#/calculate); EuroSCORE II (calculator: http://www.euroscore.org/calc.html); logistic EuroSCORE I (calculator: http://www.euroscore.org/calcge.html). Scores have major limitations for practical use in this setting by insufficiently considering disease severity and not including major risk factors such as frailty, porcelain aorta, chest radiation etc. EuroSCORE I markedly overestimates 30-day mortality and should therefore be replaced by the better performing EuroSCORE II with this regard; it is nevertheless provided here for comparison since it has been used in many TAVI studies/registries and may still be useful to identify the subgroups of patients for decision between intervention modalities and to predict 1-year mortality. Even though randomized trials support the use of TAVI for the treatment of AS in high- and intermediate-risk patients, the generalizability of these results to clinical practice may be challenged. However, in 9464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk U.S. patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR, there were similar rates of death, stroke, and days alive and out-of-hospital to 1 year, but TAVI patients were more likely to be discharged home. (17) With the increased clinical experience and newer generation devices, (18–20) TAVI is expected to expand to younger patients, where bicuspid aortic valves are more common. Early experience with TAVI in bicuspid aortic valves revealed difficulties with optimal valve positioning and more paravalvular leak. In a multi-centre registry, 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. (21) Compared with TAVI for tricuspid AS, treatment in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but a lower device success rate. However, expansion of TAVI to younger patients can only be supported with the availability of long-term data, which are still lacking. Longevity of bioprosthetic heart valves is an extremely important issue. However, comparisons of valve brands, as well as surgical and transcatheter implantation, have been difficult because different valve durability criteria have been used. The definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure have now been standardized for use in future studies in a consensus publication from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by ESC and EACTS, (22) **Figure 2**. Valve-in-valve TAVI should be considered as an option by the Heart Team for treating degenerated surgical bioprostheses depending on the risk of reoperation and the type and size of prosthesis. Thus, TAVI for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure has been associated with a relatively low complication rates and mortality, improved haemodynamics, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes. (23, 24) Furthermore, transcatheter closure may be considered for clinically significant paravalvular leaks in surgical high-risk patients. (25) FIGURE 2. (A) Causes of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. (B) Suggested assessment of bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) in outcome studies of transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). SVD, structural valve deterioration. From Capodanno *et al*. (22) This figure has been reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. ## Aortic regurgitation The 2017 VHD guidelines recommends that, in selected cases and in experienced centres, aortic valve repair, and valve-sparing aortic surgery, rather than AVR, should be considered by Heart Team for the treatment of severe AR. Consideration of valve sparing surgery, using re-implantation or remodelling with aortic annuloplasty techniques, is especially recommended in young patients with aortic root dilatation and tricuspid aortic valves, when performed by experienced surgeons. The timing of surgery in asymptomatic patients with severe AR and preserved EF remains controversial, although long-term (mean follow-up 6.6 years) survival after surgery is similar to an age- and sex-matched population. (26) TAVI for non-calcified native aortic valve regurgitation has been challenging with prosthesis embolization and high rate of paravalvular leakage. However, newer generation TAVI systems has improved the outcome with fewer patients needing a second valve (10%) and having significant residual AR (3%). (27) ## Mitral regurgitation Echocardiography is essential to assess the aetiology of mitral regurgitation (MR), but quantitative grading remains challenging. The 2017 VHD guidelines state that the thresholds used to define severe secondary MR remain controversial and need to be evaluated with regards to their impact on prognosis after MV intervention. Integration of echocardiography-derived Doppler mitral flow and CT-derived cross-sectional mitral anatomical regurgitant orifice area to calculate mitral regurgitant volume has been evaluated. (28) In 73 patients undergoing TAVI, who also had either primary or secondary MR, this approach resulted in reclassification of MR from severe to non-severe in 10% and from non-severe to severe in 14% of the patients providing a proof-of-concept of this integrated approach. A study validated a risk score (The Mitral Regurgitation International Database (MIDA) mortality risk score) integrating various clinical and echocardiographic parameters endorsed by guidelines for predicting short- and long-term mortality risk in patients with severe degenerative MR either under medical or surgical treatment. (29) In patients with severe MR and preserved left ventricular EF, worsening of global longitudinal strain using speckle-tracking resting echocardiography is independently associated with mortality during 8.3 years of follow-up, providing additive prognostic utility to reduced capacity on exercise testing and other previously known predictors. (30) Importantly, in the recent guideline, MV surgery in patients with moderate secondary MR undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery is no longer recommended in the guidelines. Mitral valve repair is recommended over MV replacement in degenerative MR and this recommendation is backed-up by multicentre registry data analysed with propensity score matching. (31) The operative mortality was lower in the MV repair group (0.2% vs. 4.4%, P 111In imaging of endocarditis. A study evaluated the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous imaging of inflammation with 111In-labelled white blood cells and myocardial perfusion with 99mTc, for localization of white blood cells relative to the valve plane in suspected endocarditis. (52) The results support the usefulness of a novel approach to increase sensitivity and accuracy of white blood cell imaging in endocarditis. Work has also considered the risks of endocarditis in patients with prosthetic valves. In a population-based cohort study of 138 867 patients with a prosthetic valve (median follow-up 1.7 years) the incidence rate of oral streptococcal IE was 93.7/100 000 patient-years. (53) No increased rate of IE was found within three months of exposure to invasive dental procedure, but in a case crossover analysis a dental procedure was more frequent in IE periods (5.1% vs. 3.2%, OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.05–2.63; P = 0.03). In the CONCOR registry, including patients with congenital heart disease, the incidence of IE was 1.33 cases/1000 patient-years. (54) Prosthetic valves were associated with an increased risk of IE (HR 5.48, 95% CI 3.58–8.38) compared with no prosthetic valve. This increased risk was found both early and during long-term follow-up after surgery. In a registry-based observational study of both biological and mechanical aortic prostheses (mean follow-up 6.2 years), the incidence of prosthetic valve IE was 0.57%/person-year; the risk was highest during the first year after surgery. (55) The risk of prosthetic valve IE was higher in the group with biological prostheses (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.29–1.83) as compared with those with mechanical prostheses. These studies have confirmed the risk of IE in patients with prosthetic valves and support the continued recommendation of antibiotic prophylaxis in all such patients. ## Perspectives With the rapid adaptation of TAVI in patients with AS and increased surgical risk, the role of TAVI in patients at low surgical risk is currently being explored. Since patients in these trials have longer life-expectancy, these trials may also add important information on longevity of bioprosthetic aortic valves. As several transcatheter repair and replacement techniques are emerging, evidence for the benefit of intervention in particular functional MR is still missing. The COAPT and French MITRA-FR trials investigate MitraClip in this setting and study results are foreseen during 2018. Furthermore, the impact of transcatheter MV replacement and tricuspidal valve repair is also under investigation. ## Acknowledgments The mention of trade names, commercial products organizations, and the inclusion of advertisements in the journal does not imply endorsement by the European Heart Journal, the editors, the editorial board, Oxford University Press or the organization to which the authors are affiliated. The editors and publishers have taken all reasonable precautions to verify drug names and doses, the results of experimental work and clinical findings published in the journal. The ultimate responsibility for the use and dosage of drugs mentioned in the journal and in interpretation of published material lies with the medical practitioner, and the editors and publisher cannot accept liability for damages arising from any error or omissions in the journal. Please inform the editors of any errors. The opinions expressed in the European Heart Journal are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Society of Cardiology, the editors, the editorial board, Oxford University Press or the organization to which the authors are affiliated. OUP and the ESC are not responsible or in any way liable for the accuracy of the translation, for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies, or for any consequences arising therefore. Ivo Planinc is solely responsible for the translation published in this reprint. Translation edited by: Mario Ivanuša. Language editing: Tomislav Salopek.

Literature

1. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, 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;38:2739–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391
2. Chambers JB, Prendergast B, Iung B, Rosenhek R, Zamorano JL, Piérard LA, et al. Standards defining a ‘Heart Valve Centre’: ESC Working Group on valvular heart disease and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery Viewpoint. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2177–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx370
3. Yan AT, Koh M, Chan KK, Guo H, Alter DA, Austin PC, et al. Association between cardiovascular risk factors and aortic stenosis: the CANHEART Aortic Stenosis Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1523–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.025
4. Larsson SC, Wolk A, Håkansson N, Bäck M. Overall and abdominal obesity and incident aortic valve stenosis: two prospective cohort studies. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2192–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx140
5. Timmis A, Townsend N, Gale C, Grobbee R, Maniadakis N, Flather M, et al. European Society of Cardiology: cardiovascular disease statistics 2017. Eur Heart J. 2018 Feb 14;39(7):508–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx628
6. Watkins DA, Johnson CO, Colquhoun SM, Karthikeyan G, Beaton A, Bukhman G, et al. Global, regional, and national Burden of rheumatic heart disease, 1990–2015. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:713–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1603693
7. Chambers JB, Garbi M, Nieman K, Myerson S, Pierard LA, Habib G, et al. Appropriateness criteria for the use of cardiovascular imaging in heart valve disease in adults: a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging report of literature review and current practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:489–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jew309
8. van Gils L, Clavel MA, Vollema EM, Hahn RT, Spitzer E, Delgado V, et al. Prognostic implications of moderate aortic stenosis in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2383–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.023
9. Shimura T, Yamamoto M, Kano S, Kagase A, Kodama A, Koyama Y, et al. OCEAN-TAVI Investigators. Impact of the clinical frailty scale on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2017;135:2013–24. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025630
10. Afilalo J, Lauck S, Kim DH, Lefèvre T, Piazza N, Lachapelle K, et al. Frailty in older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement: the FRAILTY-AVR study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.024
11. Abramowitz Y, Kazuno Y, Chakravarty T, Kawamori H, Maeno Y, Anderson D, et al. Concomitant mitral annular calcification and severe aortic stenosis: prevalence, characteristics and outcome following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1194–203. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039339/
12. Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2183–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141
13. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2658–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580
14. Korteland NM, Etnel JRG, Arabkhani B, Mokhles MM, Mohamad A, Roos-Hesselink JW, et al. Mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly adults: meta-analysis and microsimulation. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3370–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx199
15. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, Lingala B, Patrick WL, Fischbein MP, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1847–57. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792
16. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman NS, Søndergaard L, Mumtaz M, et al. SURTAVI Investigators. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321–31. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1700456
17. Brennan JM, Thomas L, Cohen DJ, Shahian D, Wang A, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: propensity-matched comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:439–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.060
18. Wendler O, Schymik G, Treede H, Baumgartner H, Dumonteil N, Neumann FJ, et al. SOURCE 3: 1-year outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the latest generation of the balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2717–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx294
19. Grube E, Van Mieghem NM, Bleiziffer S, Modine T, Bosmans J, Manoharan G, et al. Clinical outcomes with a repositionable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis: the international FORWARD study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:845–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.045
20. Falk V, Wöhrle J, Hildick-Smith D, Bleiziffer S, Blackman DJ, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Safety and efficacy of a repositionable and fully retrievable aortic valve used in routine clinical practice: the RESPOND Study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3359–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx297
21. Yoon SH, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O, Delgado V, Arai T, Ziegelmueller J, et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2579–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
22. Capodanno D, Petronio AS, Prendergast B, Eltchaninoff H, Vahanian A, Modine T, 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;38:3382–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx303
23. Deeb GM, Chetcuti SJ, Reardon MJ, Patel HJ, Grossman PM, Schreiber T, et al. 1-year results in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with failed surgical bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1034–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.018
24. Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, Dvir D, Blanke P, Herrmann HC, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 Valve-in-Valve Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2253–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.057
25. Calvert PA, Northridge DB, Malik IS, Shapiro L, Ludman P, Qureshi SA, et al. Percutaneous device closure of paravalvular leak: combined experience from the United Kingdom and Ireland. Circulation. 2016;134:934–44. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022684
26. Mentias A, Feng K, Alashi A, Rodriguez LL, Gillinov AM, Johnston DR, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with aortic regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:2144–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.045
27. Sawaya FJ, Deutsch MA, Seiffert M, Yoon SH, Codner P, Wickramarachchi U, 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;10:1048–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.004
28. van Rosendael PJ, van Wijngaarden SE, Kamperidis V, Kong WKF, Leung M, Ajmone Marsan N, et al. Integrated imaging of echocardiography and computed tomography to grade mitral regurgitation severity in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2221–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28077468/
29. Grigioni F, Clavel MA, Vanoverschelde JL, Tribouilloy C, Pizarro R, Huebner M, et al. MIDA Investigators. The MIDA Mortality Risk Score: development and external validation of a prognostic model for early and late death in degenerative mitral regurgitation. Eur Heart J. 2017 Aug 13;•••: [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx465
30. Mentias A, Naji P, Gillinov AM, Rodriguez LL, Reed G, Mihaljevic T, et al. Strain echocardiography and functional capacity in asymptomatic primary mitral regurgitation with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1974–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.030
31. Lazam S, Vanoverschelde JL, Tribouilloy C, Grigioni F, Suri RM, Avierinos JF, et al. MIDA (Mitral Regurgitation International Database) Investigators. Twenty-year outcome after mitral repair versus replacement for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation: analysis of a large, prospective, multicenter, international registry. Circulation. 2017;135:410–22. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023340
32. Mihos CG, Xydas S, Yucel E, Capoulade R, Williams RF, Mawad M, et al. Mitral valve repair and subvalvular intervention for secondary mitral regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled and propensity matched studies. J Thorac Dis. 2017 Jun;9 Suppl 7:S582–94. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.56
33. Praz F, Spargias K, Chrissoheris M, Büllesfeld L, Nickenig G, Deuschl F, et al. Compassionate use of the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system for patients with severe mitral regurgitation: a multicentre, prospective, observational, first-in-man study. Lancet. 2017;390:773–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31600-8
34. Yoon SH, Whisenant BK, Bleiziffer S, Delgado V, Schofer N, Eschenbach L, et al. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic valves and failed annuloplasty rings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:1121–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.714
35. Muller DWM, Farivar RS, Jansz P, Bae R, Walters D, Clarke A, et al. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement for patients with symptomatic mitral regurgitation. A Global Feasibility Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:381–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.068
36. Pagnesi M, Montalto C, Mangieri A, Agricola E, Puri R, Chiarito M, et al. Tricuspid annuloplasty versus a conservative approach in patients with functional tricuspid regurgitation undergoing left-sided heart valve surgery: a study-level meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;240:138–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.014
37. Redondo Palacios A, López MJ, Miguelena HJ, Martín GM, Varela BL, Ferreiro MA, et al. Which type of valve should we use in tricuspid position? Long-term comparison between mechanical and biological valves. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017 Oct;58(5):739–46. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09553-7
38. Taramasso M, Pozzoli A, Guidotti A, Nietlispach F, Inderbitzin DT, Benussi S, et al. Percutaneous tricuspid valve therapies: the new frontier. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:639–47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26802134/
39. van Rosendael PJ, Kamperidis V, Kong WK, van Rosendael AR, van der Kley F, Ajmone Marsan N, et al. Computed tomography for planning transcatheter tricuspid valve therapy. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:665–74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27807057/
40. Nickenig G, Kowalski M, Hausleiter J, Braun D, Schofer J, Yzeiraj E, et al. Transcatheter treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation with the edge-to-edge MitraClip technique. Circulation. 2017;135:1802–14. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024848
41. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Brueckmann M, Granger CB, Kappetein AP, Mack MJ, et al. Align Investigators RE. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1300615
42. Lester PA, Coleman DM, Diaz JA, Jackson TO, Hawley AE, Mathues AR, et al. Apixaban versus Warfarin for mechanical heart valve thromboprophylaxis in a swine aortic heterotopic valve model. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2017;37:942–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.308649
43. Vavuranakis M, Siasos G, Zografos T, Oikonomou E, Vrachatis D, Kalogeras K, et al. Dual or single antiplatelet therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Pharm Des. 2016;22:4596–603. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612822666160601110716
44. Chakravarty T, Søndergaard L, Friedman J, De Backer O, Berman D, Kofoed KF, et al. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study. Lancet. 2017;389:2383–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30757-2
45. Fuchs A, De Backer O, Brooks M, de Knegt MC, Bieliauskas G, Yamamoto M, et al. Subclinical leaflet thickening and stent frame geometry in self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. EuroIntervention. 2017 Oct 13;13(9):e1067–75. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00373
46. Vollema EM, Kong WKF, Katsanos S, Kamperidis V, van Rosendael PJ, van der Kley F, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: the relation between hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening, abnormal valve haemodynamics, and stroke. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1207–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx031
47. Søndergaard L, De Backer O, Kofoed KF, Jilaihawi H, Fuchs A, Chakravarty T, et al. Natural history of subclinical leaflet thrombosis affecting motion in bioprosthetic aortic valves. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2201–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx369
48. Orwat S, Diller GP, van Hagen IM, Schmidt R, Tobler D, Greutmann M, et al. Risk of pregnancy in moderate and severe aortic stenosis: from the Multinational ROPAC Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1727–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.07.750
49. Steinberg ZL, Dominguez-Islas CP, Otto CM, Stout KK, Krieger EV. Maternal and fetal outcomes of anticoagulation in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2681–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.605
50. D’Souza R, Ostro J, Shah PS, Silversides CK, Malinowski A, Murphy KE, et al. Anticoagulation for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1509–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx032
51. Koo HJ, Yang DH, Kang JW, Lee JY, Kim DH, Song JM, et al. Demonstration of infective endocarditis by cardiac CT and transoesophageal echocardiography: comparison with intra-operative findings. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Feb 1;19(2):199–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex010
52. Caobelli F, Wollenweber T, Bavendiek U, Kühn C, Schütze C, Geworski L, et al. Simultaneous dual-isotope solid-state detector SPECT for improved tracking of white blood cells in suspected endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:436–43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27469371/
53. Tubiana S, Blotière PO, Hoen B, Lesclous P, Millot S, Rudant J, et al. Dental procedures, antibiotic prophylaxis, and endocarditis among people with prosthetic heart valves: nationwide population based cohort and a case crossover study. BMJ. 2017 Sep 7;358:j3776. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3776
54. Kuijpers JM, Koolbergen DR, Groenink M, Peels KCH, Reichert CLA, Post MC, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and predictors of infective endocarditis in adult congenital heart disease: focus on the use of prosthetic material. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2048–56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28065906/
55. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after surgical aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2017;136:329–31. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028783