J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Feb 16;67(6):724-731. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.11.006. Epub 2015 Dec 4.
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" (J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:e27-130) and the "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease" (J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:e57-185). 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.
两份来自美国心脏病学会 (ACC)、美国心脏协会 (AHA) 和合作学会的指南涉及到二叶式主动脉瓣和严重主动脉扩张患者主动脉夹层的风险:“2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM 胸主动脉疾病患者诊断和管理指南”(J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:e27-130)和“2014 AHA/ACC 瓣膜性心脏病患者管理指南”(J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:e57-185)。然而,这两条指南在建议进行外科干预的二叶式主动脉瓣患者的主动脉根部或升主动脉扩张阈值方面存在差异。因此,ACC 和 AHA 召集了一个代表这两条指南编写委员会成员的小组委员会,审查证据、达成共识,并为这两条指南起草一份澄清声明。该澄清声明使用 ACC/AHA 修订的推荐类别和证据水平结构来提供建议,以取代胸主动脉疾病指南第 9.2.2.1 节和瓣膜性心脏病指南第 5.1.3 节中包含的建议。