Department of Cardiology, Newham University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Glen Road, London E13 8SL, UK.
Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021 Jul 21;7(4):340-353. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab016.
Multiple guidelines exist for the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We systematically reviewed current guidelines and recommendations, developed by national or international medical organizations, on management of AS to aid clinical decision-making. Publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE between 1 June 2010 and 15 January 2021 were identified. Additionally, the International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations were searched. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Two reviewers assessed rigour of guideline development and extracted the recommendations. Of the seven guidelines and recommendations retrieved, five showed considerable rigour of development. Those rigourously developed, agreed on the definition of severe AS and diverse haemodynamic phenotypes, indications and contraindications for intervention in symptomatic severe AS, surveillance intervals in asymptomatic severe AS, and the importance of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and shared decision-making. Discrepancies exist in age and surgical risk cut-offs for recommending surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs. transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the use of biomarkers and complementary multimodality imaging for decision-making in asymptomatic patients and surveillance intervals for non-severe AS. Contemporary guidelines for AS management agree on the importance of MDT involvement and shared decision-making for individualized treatment and unanimously indicate valve replacement in severe, symptomatic AS. Discrepancies exist in thresholds for age and procedural risk used in choosing between SAVR and TAVI, role of biomarkers and complementary imaging modalities to define AS severity and risk of progression in asymptomatic patients.
多种指南存在于主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)的管理中。我们系统地回顾了当前的指南和建议,这些指南和建议由国家或国际医学组织制定,旨在帮助临床决策。在 2010 年 6 月 1 日至 2021 年 1 月 15 日期间,在 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 中检索到出版物。此外,还检索了国际指南库、国家指南清理中心、国家卫生指南查找器、加拿大医学会临床实践指南信息库以及相关组织的网站。两名审查员独立筛选标题和摘要。两名审查员评估了指南制定的严谨性并提取了建议。在检索到的 7 项指南和建议中,有 5 项具有相当的严谨性。这些严谨制定的指南,对严重 AS 的定义和不同的血流动力学表型、有症状的严重 AS 的干预指征和禁忌证、无症状严重 AS 的监测间隔以及多学科团队(MDT)和共同决策的重要性达成一致意见。在推荐手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)与经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的年龄和手术风险截止值、生物标志物和补充多模态成像在无症状患者决策和非严重 AS 监测间隔方面存在差异。当代 AS 管理指南都同意 MDT 参与和共同决策对于个体化治疗的重要性,并一致指出在严重、有症状的 AS 中应进行瓣膜置换。在选择 SAVR 和 TAVI 之间使用的年龄和程序风险阈值、生物标志物和补充成像方式在定义无症状患者的 AS 严重程度和进展风险方面的作用方面存在差异。