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

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

Association between mitral annular calcification and progression of mitral and aortic stenoses.

BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) is a chronic degenerative process affecting the annular fibrosus of the mitral valve. We sought to examine the relationship between MAC and the progression of valve disease. METHODS: The echocardiography database was searched for patients with MAC who had undergone at least two studies more than 1 year apart. The degree of MAC was quantified according to both extent and thickness. The degree of aortic stenosis (AS) and mitral stenosis (MS) was classified according to valve area and mean gradient, respectively. RESULTS: Of 125 patients, moderate or greater AS was present in 8 of 86 (9.3%) patients with mild, 12 of 29 (41.4%) patients with moderate, and 4 of 10 (40%) patients with severe MAC extent, P = .0002. The rate of progression of AS was highest in those with greatest MAC extent (0.21 cm2 /y) or greatest MAC thickness (0.28 cm2 /y) compared with those with least MAC extent (0.09 cm2 /y) or thickness (0.07 cm2 /y), P = .04 and <.0001, respectively. The rate of progression of mean mitral gradient was highest in those with greatest MAC extent (0.71 mm Hg/y) or greatest MAC thickness (0.17 mm Hg/y) compared with those with least MAC extent (0.07 mm Hg/y) or thickness (0.07 mm Hg/y), P = .0003 and P < .0001, respectively. Patients with greatest MAC extent had lower survival than those with lower MAC extent, P = .03. However, there was no difference in survival between patients with different MAC thickness, P = .43. CONCLUSION: Both the degree of MAC extent and thickness are associated with the rate of progression of aortic and mitral stenosis and may serve as a risk marker for future progression.