Current Cardiology Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 85–90

What is new in the 2006 ACC/AHA guidelines on valvular heart disease?



In June 2006, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart disease were published. Although many recommendations were unchanged from the 1998 guidelines, several new suggestions bear comment. The new guidelines favor a more aggressive approach to most valve lesions. For patients with low-gradient, low ejection fraction aortic stenosis, detecting inotropic reserve to help risk stratify such patients is now recommended. In the field of aortic regurgitation, the use of vasodilators to forestall surgery has been called into doubt by newer data; thus, recommendations for vasodilator use have been softened. For patients with mitral regurgitation, earlier surgery and mitral repair are highlighted. The new guidelines also reflect a growing trend toward the use of biological valves instead of mechanical prostheses. This 150-page document with more than 1000 references should be useful in guiding practice for these often complex patients. This article summarizes some of the more salient changes in 2006 compared with those of 1998.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, et al.: ACC/ AHA 2006 guidelines 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 (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2006, 114:E84–E231. [Published erratum appears in Circulation 2007, 115:E409.]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, Jr, et al.: Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation 1998, 98:1949–1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al.: 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carabello BA: Clinical practice: aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:677–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross J, Jr, Braunwald E: Aortic stenosis. Circulation 1968, 38(1 Suppl):61–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly TA, Rothbart RM, Cooper CM, et al.: Comparison of outcome of asymptomatic to symptomatic patients older than 20 year of age with valvular aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1988, 61:123–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pellikka PA, Sarano ME, Nishimura RA, et al.: Outcome of 622 adults with asymptomatic, hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis during prolonged follow-up. Circulation 2005, 111:3290–3295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das P, Rimington H, Chambers J: Exercise testing to stratify risk in aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2005, 26:1309–1313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenhek R, Klaar U, Schemper M, et al.: Mild and moderate aortic stenosis. Natural history and risk stratification by echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carabello BA, Green LH, Grossman W, et al.: Hemodynamic determinants of prognosis of aortic valve replacement in critical aortic stenosis and advanced congestive heart failure. Circulation 1980, 62:42–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brogan WC 3rd, Grayburn PA, Lange RA, Hillis LD: Prognosis after valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and a low transvalvular pressure gradient. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 21:1657–1660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, et al.: Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation 2000, 101:1940–1946.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monin JL, Quere JP, Monchi M, et al.: Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation 2003, 108:319–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quere JP, Monin JL, Levy F, et al.: Influence of preoperative left ventricular contractile reserve on postoperative ejection fraction in low-gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation 2006, 113:1738–1744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wisenbaugh T, Spann JF, Carabello BA: Differences in myocardial performance and load between patients with similar amounts of chronic aortic versus chronic mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984, 3:916–923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carabello BA: Aortic regurgitation: a lesion with similarities to both aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation. Circulation 1990, 82:1051–1053.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taniguchi K, Nakano S, Hirose H, et al.: Preoperative left ventricular function: minimal requirement for successful late results of valve replacement for aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987, 10:510–518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klodas E, Enriquez-Sarano M, Tajik AJ, et al.: Optimizing timing of surgical correction in patients with severe aortic regurgitation: role of symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997, 30:746–752.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scognamiglio R, Rahimtoola SH, Fasoli G, et al.: Nifedipine in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic regurgitation and normal left ventricular function. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:689–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evangelista A, Tornos P, Sambola A, et al.: Long-term vasodilator therapy in patients with severe aortic regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1342–1349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Braverman AC, Guven H, Beardslee MA, et al.: The bicuspid aortic valve. Curr Probl Cardiol 2005, 30:470–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahn RT, Roman MJ, Mogtader AH, Devereux RB: Association of aortic dilation with regurgitant, stenotic and functionally normal bicuspid aortic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992, 19:283–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keane MG, Wiegers SE, Plappert T, Pochettino A, et al.: Bicuspid aortic valves are associated with aortic dilatation out of proportion to coexistent valvular lesions. Circulation 2000, 102(19 Suppl 3):III35–III39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roberts CS, Roberts WC: Dissection of the aorta associated with congenital malformation of the aortic valve. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991, 17:712–716.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Enriquez-Sarano M, Schaff HV, Orszulak TA, et al.: Valve repair improves the outcome of surgery for mitral regurgitation. A multivariate analysis. Circulation 1995, 91:1022–1028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    David TE, Uden DE, Strauss HD: The importance of the mitral apparatus in left ventricular function after correction of mitral regurgitation. Circulation 1983, 68:II76–II82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldman ME, Mora F, Guarino T, et al.: Mitral valvuloplasty is superior to valve replacement for preservation of left ventricular function: an intraoperative two-dimensional echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987, 10:568–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rozich JD, Carabello BA, Usher BW, et al.: Mitral valve replacement with and without chordal preservation in patients with chronic mitral regurgitation. Mechanisms for differences in postoperative ejection performance. Circulation 1992, 86:1718–1726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horskotte D, Schulte HD, Bircks W, Stauer BE: The effect of chordal preservation on late outcome after mitral valve replacement: a randomized study. J Heart Valve Dis 1993, 2:150–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gillinov AM, Cosgrove DM, Blackstone EH, et al.: Durability of mitral valve repair for degenerative disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998, 116:734–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsumura T, Ohtaki E, Tanaka K, et al.: Echocardiographic prediction of left ventricular dysfunction after mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation as an indicator to decide the optimal timing of repair. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42:458–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bolling SF: Mitral reconstruction in cardiomyopathy. J Heart Valve Dis 2002, 11(Suppl 1):S26–S31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu AH, Aaronson KD, Bolling SF, et al.: Impact of mitral valve annuloplasty on mortality risk in patients with mitral regurgitation and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 45:381–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bishay ES, McCarthy PM, Cosgrove DM, et al.: Mitral valve surgery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000, 17:213–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Boer K, ten Cate JW, Sturk A, et al.: Enhanced thrombin generation in normal and hypertensive pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989, 160:95–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hung L, Rahimtoola SH: Prosthetic heart valves and pregnancy. Circulation 2003, 107:1240–1246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wong V, Cheng CH, Chan KC: Fetal and neonatal outcome of exposure to anticoagulants during pregnancy. Am J Med Genet 1993, 45:17–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salazar E, Izaguirre R, Verdejo J, Mutchinick O: Failure of adjusted doses of subcutaneous heparin to prevent thromboembolic phenomena in pregnant patients with mechanical cardiac valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:1698–1703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elkayam UR: Anticoagulation in pregnant women with prosthetic heart valves: a double jeopardy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:1704–1706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bates SM, Greer IA, Hirsh J, Ginsberg JS: Use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004, 126(3 Suppl):S627–S644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keane JF, Driscoll DJ, Gersony WM, et al.: Second natural history study of congenital heart defects. Results of treatment of patients with aortic valvar stenosis. Circulation 1993, 87(2 Suppl):I16–I27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Attie F, Rosas M, Rijlaarsdam M, et al.: The adult patient with Ebstein anomaly. Outcome in 72 unoperated patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2000, 79:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Thomas JD, et al.: Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002, 73:1460–1465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Medicine Group LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Service (111)Veterans Affairs Medical CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations