Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 61–67 | Cite as

Heart Valve Disease Awareness Survey 2017: what did we achieve since 2015?

  • Luise GaedeEmail author
  • Lars Aarberge
  • George Brandon Bravo Bruinsma
  • Philip Macarthy
  • Francesco Musumeci
  • Pepe Zamorano
  • Helge Möllmann
Original Paper



The 2015 Heart Valve Disease Awareness Survey showed a low knowledge and awareness about heart valve disease in the general population despite its high prevalence and morbidity. The 2017 survey was conducted to re-evaluate concern and knowledge about heart valve disease after 2 years of rapidly increasing patient numbers presenting with heart valve disease.

Methods and results

A total of 12,820 people aged 60 years or older in 11 European countries took part in the survey. While the number of people concerned most about heart valve disease increased significantly (2015:1.7% vs. 2017:2.1%; p < 0.001), it is still very low compared to cancer (28.8%) or Alzheimer’s disease (20.9%). More people claim to be familiar with heart valve disease in general (2015: 17.1% vs. 2017: 20.0%; p < 0.001) and the majority claims to know of at least one therapy for heart valve disease (61.9%). Nevertheless, only 3.8% could correctly identify aortic stenosis (AS), which is significantly less than in 2015 (7.2%; p < 0.001). As before, the majority of the respondents claimed to rarely or never undergo a stethoscope check from their general practitioner (2015: 54.2% vs. 2017: 50.6%, p < 0.001); nevertheless, a positive trend can be seen. People wish heart valve disease to be part of regular checks by the general practitioners.


The general population’s knowledge of heart valve disease in general slightly increased over the last 2 years. However, detailed understanding of aortic stenosis and its treatment options is still low, as is the level of concern shown for heart valve disease. Nevertheless, the general population cites heart valve disease as a condition they wish to be checked for regularly.


Heart valve disease Survey Knowledge Awareness Aortic stenosis 



The 2017 Heart Valve Disease Awareness Survey was conducted by Censuswide and funded by Edwards Lifesciences.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

L. Gaede is a consultant for Abbott vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. H. Möllmann has received speaker’s honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, and proctor and speaker’s honoraria from Abbott and Medtronic. G. J. Brandon Bravo Bruinsma is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and CEC member for LivaNova. J. Zamorano has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. L. Aarberge has been a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN et al (2006) Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 368:1005–1011. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh JP, Evans JC, Levy D et al (1999) Prevalence and clinical determinants of mitral, tricuspid, and aortic regurgitation (The Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol 83:897–902. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry C, Lloyd SM, Wang Y et al (2013) The changing course of aortic valve disease in Scotland: temporal trends in hospitalizations and mortality and prognostic importance of aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 34:1538–1547. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lancellotti P, Troisfontaines P, Toussaint AC, Pierard LA (2003) Prognostic importance of exercise-induced changes in mitral regurgitation in patients with chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 108:1713–1717. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nath J, Foster E, Heidenreich PA (2004) Impact of tricuspid regurgitation on long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:405–409. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ROSS J, BRAUNWALD E (1968) Aortic stenosis. Circulation 38:V-61–V-67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME et al (1997) Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clin Echocardiogr Exerc Predict Outcome 95:2262–2270. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G et al (2001) Predictors of outcome in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 344:227. (author reply 228–229) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 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. Eur Heart J 38:2739–2791. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaede L, Kim W-K, Blumenstein J et al (2017) Temporal trends in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Herz 42:316–324. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2018) Outcome after transvascular transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 2016. Eur Heart J 39:667-. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Kim W-K et al (2017) Trends in aortic valve replacement in Germany in 2015: transcatheter versus isolated surgical aortic valve repair. Clin Res Cardiol 106:411–419. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Möllmann H (2015) In-hospital outcome of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AQUA Registry). Clin Res Cardiol 104:1934Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaede L, Di Bartolomeo R, Van Der Kley F et al (2016) Aortic valve stenosis: what do people know ? A heart valve disease awareness survey of over 8800 people aged 60 or over. EuroIntervention 12:883–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2017) Heart valve diseases. How sufficient is the knowledge of the German population? Herz. (epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gummert J, Funkat A, Beckmann A et al (2011) Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2010: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 59:259–267. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Puls M, Lubos E, Boekstegers P et al (2016) One-year outcomes and predictors of mortality after MitraClip therapy in contemporary clinical practice: results from the German transcatheter mitral valve interventions registry. Eur Heart J 37:703–712. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim WK, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2017) Comparison of outcomes using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter prostheses according to the extent of aortic valve calcification. Clin Res Cardiol. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frerker C, Bestehorn K, Schlüter M et al (2017) In-hospital mortality in propensity-score matched low-risk patients undergoing routine isolated surgical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 2014 in Germany. Clin Res Cardiol 106:610–617. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim W-K, Liebetrau C, van Linden A et al (2016) Myocardial injury associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Clin Res Cardiol 105:379–387. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Möllmann H, Bestehorn K, Bestehorn M et al (2016) In-hospital outcome of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve stenosis—complete dataset of patients treated in 2013 in Germany. Clin Res Cardiol 105:553–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaede L, Kim WK, Liebetrau C et al (2018) Pacemaker implantation after TAVI: predictors of AV block persistence. Clin Res Cardiol 107:60–69. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Kim W-K et al (2017) Trends in aortic valve replacement in Germany in 2015: transcatheter versus isolated surgical aortic valve repair. Clin Res Cardiol. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bleiziffer S, Bosmans J, Brecker S et al (2017) Erratum to: Insights on mid-term TAVR performance: 3-year clinical and echocardiographic results from the CoreValve ADVANCE study (Clin Res Cardiol, 10.1007/s00392-017-1120-3). Clin Res Cardiol 106:849. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coglianese EE, Davidoff R (2009) Predicting outcome in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circulation 120:9–11. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pellikka PA, Sarano M, Nishimura R et al (2005) Outcome of 622 adults with asymptomatic, hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis during prolonged follow-up. Circulation 111:3290–3295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Monin JL, Lancellotti P, Monchi M et al (2009) Risk score for predicting outcome in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circulation 120:69–75. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication August 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luise Gaede
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lars Aarberge
    • 2
  • George Brandon Bravo Bruinsma
    • 3
  • Philip Macarthy
    • 4
  • Francesco Musumeci
    • 5
  • Pepe Zamorano
    • 6
  • Helge Möllmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CardiologySt.-Johannes-Hospital, Medizinische Klinik IDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryIsala Heart CentreZwolleNetherlands
  4. 4.King’s College London and King’s College Hospital LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Department of Cardiac SurgerySan Camillo HospitalRomeItaly
  6. 6.Department of CardiologyUniversity Hospital Ramón y Cajal Carretera de ColmenarMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations