Search

Aim: This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline. Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines.

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex valve lesion that can pose significant management challenges. This expert consensus decision pathway emphasizes that recognition of MR should prompt an assessment of its etiology, mechanism, and severity, as well as consideration of the indications for treatment. The document is a focused update of the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation, with some sections updated and others added in light of the publication of new trial data related to secondary MR, among other developments. A structured approach to evaluation based on clinical findings, accurate echocardiographic imaging, and, when necessary, adjunctive testing can help clarify decision making. Treatment goals include timely intervention by an experienced multidisciplinary heart team to prevent left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While open access publishing among cardiovascular journals has increased in scope over the last decade, the relationship between open access and article citation volume remains unclear., Methods: We evaluated the association between open access publishing and citation number in 2017 among 4 major cardiovascular journals. Articles indexed to PubMed with ≥5 citations were identified among the following journals: Circulation, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and JAMA Cardiology. Multivariable Poisson regression models were adjusted for journal and article type., Results: Of the 916 articles published in 2017, original investigations accounted for most articles (66.7%), followed by reviews (14.5%), guideline/scientific statements (8.4%), research letters (3.7%), viewpoints (3.7%), and editorials (2.9%). Among all articles, 43% (n = 391) were open access. Citation number was higher among open access articles compared with those with subscription access (14 [25 th -75 th percentile: 9-23] vs 11 [25 th -75 th percentile: 7-17]; P < .001). Open access status was significantly associated with higher number of citations after multivariable adjustment (β coefficient: +0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.45, P < .001). Open access articles had consistently higher citations compared with subscription access articles across the 3 most frequent article types., Conclusion: Among contemporary articles published in major cardiovascular journals, open access publishing accounted for over 40% of articles and was significantly associated with increased short-term citations. Further research is required to assess the variation in long-term citation rates based on open access publishing status., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. 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 Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Two guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and collaborating societies address the risk of aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and severe aortic enlargement: the "2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease" (Circulation. 2010;121:e266-e369) and the "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease" (Circulation. 2014;129:e521-e643). However, the 2 guidelines differ with regard to the recommended threshold of aortic root or ascending aortic dilatation that would justify surgical intervention in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The ACC and AHA therefore convened a subcommittee representing members of the 2 guideline writing committees to review the evidence, reach consensus, and draft a statement of clarification for both guidelines. This statement of clarification uses the ACC/AHA revised structure for delineating the Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to provide recommendations that replace those contained in Section 9.2.2.1 of the thoracic aortic disease guideline and Section 5.1.3 of the valvular heart disease guideline., (© 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc.)

Most cardiomyopathies are familial diseases. Cascade family screening identifies asymptomatic patients and family members with early traits of disease. The inheritance is autosomal dominant in a majority of cases, and recessive, X-linked, or matrilinear in the remaining. For the last 50 years, cardiomyopathy classifications have been based on the morphofunctional phenotypes, allowing cardiologists to conveniently group them in broad descriptive categories. However, the phenotype may not always conform to the genetic characteristics, may not allow risk stratification, and may not provide pre-clinical diagnoses in the family members. Because genetic testing is now increasingly becoming a part of clinical work-up, and based on the genetic heterogeneity, numerous new names are being coined for the description of cardiomyopathies associated with mutations in different genes; a comprehensive nosology is needed that could inform the clinical phenotype and involvement of organs other than the heart, as well as the genotype and the mode of inheritance. The recently proposed MOGE(S) nosology system embodies all of these characteristics, and describes the morphofunctional phenotype (M), organ(s) involvement (O), genetic inheritance pattern (G), etiological annotation (E) including genetic defect or underlying disease/substrate, and the functional status (S) of the disease using both the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stage and New York Heart Association functional class. The proposed nomenclature is supported by a web-assisted application and assists in the description of cardiomyopathy in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients and family members in the context of genetic testing. It is expected that such a nomenclature would help group cardiomyopathies on their etiological basis, describe complex genetics, and create collaborative registries., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research.

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have provided leadership in enhancing the quality of cardiovascular care, including the development of clinical performance measures and clinical registries that permit the evaluation of quality of care and stimulate quality improvement. Compliance with ACC/AHA performance measures and metrics encourages the provision of the strongest evidence-based quality of care, including therapies that are life-extending or life-enhancing. Among quality metrics, only a subset should be considered performance measures-that is, those measures specifically suitable for public reporting, external comparisons, and possibly pay-for-performance programs, in addition to quality improvement. These performance measures have been developed using ACC/AHA methodology, often in collaboration with other organizations, and include the process of public comment and peer review. Quality metrics are those measures that have been developed to support self assessment and quality improvement at the provider, hospital, and/or health care system level. These metrics represent valuable tools to aid clinicians and hospitals in improving quality of care and enhancing patient outcomes, but may not meet all specifications of formal performance measures. These quality metrics may also be considered "candidate" measures that with further research of field testing would meet the criteria for formal performance measures in the future. This measure classification is intended to aid providers, hospitals, health systems, and payers in identifying those measures that the ACC and AHA formally endorse as performance measures, while at the same time promoting the broader range of clinical metrics that are useful for quality improvement efforts.