Mitral regurgitation management: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations

Author:

Galusko Victor1ORCID,Sekar Baskar2,Ricci Fabrizio345ORCID,Wong Kit6,Bhattacharyya Sanjeev67ORCID,Mullen Michael6,Gallina Sabina3,Ionescu Adrian8,Khanji Mohammed Yunus679ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, UK

2. Department of Cardiology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK

3. Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, Institute of Advanced Biomedical Technologies, G.d'Annunzio University, 66100 Chieti, Italy

4. Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Jan Waldenströms gata 35-205, Malmö 22100, Sweden

5. Department of Cardiology, Casa di Cura Villa Serena, 65013 Città Sant'Angelo, Pescara, Italy

6. Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK

7. NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1A 7BE, UK

8. Department of Cardiology, Morriston Cardiac Regional Centre, Swansea Bay Health Board, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK

9. Department of Cardiology, Newham University Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Glen Road, London E13 8SL, UK

Abstract

Abstract Multiple guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of mitral regurgitation (MR), the second most common valvular heart disease in high-income countries, with recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed guidelines on diagnosis and management of MR, highlighting similarities and differences to guide clinical decision-making. We searched national and international guidelines in MEDLINE and EMBASE (1 June 2010 to 1 September 2021), the Guidelines International Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and identified articles of interest. Guidelines that were rigorously developed (as assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument) were retained for analysis. Five guidelines were retained. There was consensus on a multidisciplinary approach from the heart team and for the definition and grading of severe primary MR. There was general agreement on the thresholds for intervention in symptomatic and asymptomatic primary MR; however, discrepancies were present. There was agreement on optimization of medical therapy in severe secondary MR and intervention in patients symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy, but no consensus on the choice of intervention (surgical repair/replacement vs. transcatheter approach). Cut-offs for high-risk intervention in MR, risk stratification of progressive MR, and guidance on mixed valvular disease were sparse.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Health Policy

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3