2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Comparison of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for aortic stenosis (AS). However, there are still differences in the procedural process and outcome of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with TAVI compared with tricuspid aortic valve.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper aims to summarize the main characteristics and clinical evidence of TAVI in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves and compare the outcomes of TAVI procedure.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of TAVI in patients with BAV has shown similar clinical outcomes compared with tricuspid aortic valve. The efficacy of TAVI for challenging BAV anatomies remains a concern due to the lack of randomized trials. Detailed preprocedural planning is of great importance in low-surgical-risk BAV patients. A better understanding of which subtypes of BAV anatomy are at greater risk for adverse outcomes can potentially benefit the selection of TAVI or open-heart surgery in low surgical risk AS patients.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Ascending Aorta Diameter Changes after Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients with Aortic Valve Stenosis

Objective

To describe the natural history of the ascending aorta in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic valve stenosis and to clarify the risk factors associated with the progression of the ascending aorta.

Methods

This retrospective review included a total of 87 elderly patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis in Fuwai Hospital. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the height-based aortic height index (AHI) before AVR, as determined by echocardiography and computed tomography: Group A (n = 28) was defined as an AHI > 2.44 cm/m, and Group B (n = 59) was defined as an AHI ≤ 2.44 cm/m. The perioperative and follow-up data were collected, and a linear mixed-effect model was used to analyze and compare the change rate of the ascending aorta after AVR.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 4.0 ± 1.3 years. The diameter of ascending aorta in group A increased from 37.2 ± 5.0 mm at discharge to 40.7 ± 4.7 mm at the last follow-up (P=0.001), while that of group B increased only from 33.3 ± 4.4 mm to 33.7 ± 4.1 mm (P > 0.05).The ascending aorta diameter expansive rate was 0.81 mm/year in group A and 0.14 mm/year in group B. The expansive rate was significantly greater in patients with an AHI>2.44 cm/m than in those with anything else (P = 0.009). A univariable linear mixed model analysis revealed that the AHI>2.44 cm/m was the only significant risk factor for ascending aortic dilatation rate after AVR. There were 4 patients who died in hospital and 11 late follow-up deaths. Particularly, there was no aortic event that occurred during follow-up.

Conclusion

For elderly patients with aortic stenosis, the possibility of progressive ascending aortic dilatation after AVR demands regular follow-up, and AHI may be an important risk factor for the change rate of the diameter of the ascending aorta.

Impact of Non-Valvular Non-Coronary Concomitant Procedures on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients

Introduction: advanced age and concomitant procedures could increase the risk of perioperative complications during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate results of elderly patients undergoing SAVR and evaluate the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures on the outcomes. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study, evaluating 464 elderly patients (mean age = 75.6 ± 4 years) undergoing either isolated-SAVR (I-SAVR = 211) or combined-SAVR (C-SAVR = 253) between 01/2007 and 12/2017. Combined-SAVR involved non-valvular, non-coronary procedures. Study endpoints are postoperative results concerning the VARC-II criteria, valve dysfunction, long-term freedom from redo-AVR and survival. Results: males were 52.8%. Patients had an intermediate risk profile (mean EuroSCORE-II (%) 5.2 ± 5). Postoperative results reported no significant differences in incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (6.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.0), stroke (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.59), dialysis (6.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.23) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.79) between I-SAVR and C-SAVR groups. Thirty-day (2.4% vs. 7.1% p = 0.03), one-year (5.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.003) and overall mortality (24.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) were lower in the isolated-SAVR group. Re-AVR was indicated in 1.7% of patients due to endocarditis. Conclusions: SAVR in elderly patients offers good outcomes with increased life quality and rare re-operation for structural valvular deterioration. Mortality rates were significantly higher when SAVR was combined with another “non-valvular, non-coronary” procedure.

The fate of mild to moderate proximal aortic dilatation after isolated aortic valve replacement in tricuspid aortic valve patients

BACKGROUND

Proximal aortic dilatation is frequently associated with aortic valve pathology. The treatment of mild to moderate proximal aortic dilatation (maximal diameter: 40-50 mm) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still controversial. We retrospectively analyzed the fate and progression of the proximal dilated aorta after isolated AVR in tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) patients, to determine if ascending aortic replacement (AAR) is recommended at the time of the initial AVR.

METHODS

The review of our hospital database revealed a subgroup of 127 TAV disease patients with mild to moderate ascending aortic dilatation, who underwent isolated AVR (group I, n = 68) or AVR combined AAR (group II, n = 59) from January 2000 to December 2013. Follow-up was obtained through a telephone interview/outpatient interview. Adverse aortic events were defined as aortic dissection/ rupture, or diameter of proximal aorta ≥55 mm, or re-do aortic surgery contributable to the dilated aorta during follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no differences in age, gender, heart function, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, chronic renal failure, and atrium fibrillation between two groups except for the maximum aortic diameter (group I 43.91 ± 2.0 vs group II 45.20 ± 2.63, P < .05). The cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly less in group I than that in group II, owing to the replacement of the proximal aorta. A total of 126 patients were discharged home successfully, with 0.79% hospital mortality. There was no significant difference of hospital mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Follow-up was successfully obtained in 106 patients (84.13%). Mean follow-up time was (9.60 ± 3.47) years. The overall survival at 10-year follow-up was 72.46% ± 6.42% in group I versus 74.55% ± 6.87% in group II ( P = .73). The freedom from adverse aortic events at 10-year was 89.59% ± 4.02% in group I versus 96.88% ± 3.07% in group II ( P = .09). No significant difference in survival rate and freedom from adverse aortic events can be obtained between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Progression of proximal aorta leading to adverse aortic events after isolated AVR in TAV patients is infrequent. AVR alone is acceptable and reasonable in patients with mild to moderate proximal aortic dilatation if connective tissue disorders are not present.

Ascending aortic dilatation rate after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis: A multidetector computed tomography follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Current data is lacking about the progression of ascending aortic dilatation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in aortic stenosis (AS) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). This study aims to assess the ascending aortic dilatation rate (mm/year) after TAVR in patients with BAV versus TAV using a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) follow-up and to determine the predictors of ascending aortic dilatation rate.

METHODS

Severe AS patients undergoing TAVR from March 2013 to March 2018 at our center with MDCT follow-ups were included. BAV and TAV were identified using baseline MDCT. Baseline and follow-up MDCT images were analyzed, and the diameters of ascending aorta were measured. Study end point is ascending aortic dilatation rate (mm/year). Furthermore, factors predicting ascending aortic dilatation rate were also investigated.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight patients were included, comprised of 86 BAV and 122 TAV patients. Five, 4, 3, 2, and 1-year MDCT follow-ups were achieved in 7, 9, 30, 46, and 116 patients. The ascending aortic diameter was significantly increased after TAVR in both BAV group (43.7±4.4 mm vs. 44.0±4.5 mm; P<0.001) and TAV group (39.1±4.8 mm vs. 39.7±5.1 mm; P<0.001). However, no difference of ascending aortic dilatation rate was found between BAV and TAV group (0.2±0.8 mm/year vs. 0.3±0.8 mm/year, P=0.592). Multivariate linear regression revealed paravalvular leakage (PVL) grade was independently associated with ascending aortic dilatation rate in the whole population and BAV group, but not TAV group. No aortic events occurred during follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

Ascending aortic size continues to grow after TAVR in BAV patients, but the dilatation rate is mild and comparable to that of TAV patients. PVL grade is associated with ascending aortic dilatation rate in BAV patients post-TAVR.

Novel Approaches for BAV Aortopathy Prediction-Is There a Need for Cohort Studies and Biomarkers?

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is the most common congenital malformation of the human heart with a prevalence of 1–2% in the general population. More than half of patients with a BAV present with a dilated proximal aorta (so-called bicuspid aortopathy) which is associated with an enhanced risk of life-threatening aortic complications. Up to now, the pathogenesis of bicuspid aortopathy as well as the risk stratification of aortic complications has not yet been sufficiently clarified. Recent findings have shown that bicuspid aortopathy features phenotypic heterogeneity. Two distinct valvulo-aortic phenotypes, the so-called root phenotype, as well as a dilation of the tubular ascending aorta, coincide with a significantly different risk for aortal complications. However, the phenotype-based classification that is only based on these two clinical forms is not sufficient to estimate the risk of aortal complications in a prognostically relevant way. Therefore, there is growing clinical interest to assess novel approaches in BAV research and to introduce circulating biomarkers as an elegant diagnostic tool to improve risk stratification in BAV aortopathy. A large scale epidemiological cohort study, ranking from apparently healthy individuals to disease patients, and comprehensive biobanks provide the opportunity to study BAV disease and its complications and to identify novel biomarkers for BAV aortopathy surveillance and prognosis. Firstly, the data indicate that several protein-based biomarkers and non-coding RNA molecules, in particular circulating microRNAs, can serve as relevant molecular biomarkers to predict the course of BAV-associated aortopathy. Here, we review the current literature and knowledge about BAV from a clinical point of view, and report about novel approaches in BAV biomarker research.

Differential flow improvements after valve replacements in bicuspid aortic valve disease: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment

BACKGROUND

Abnormal aortic flow patterns in bicuspid aortic valve disease (BAV) may be partly responsible for the associated aortic dilation. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) may normalize flow patterns and potentially slow the concomitant aortic dilation. We therefore sought to examine differences in flow patterns post AVR.

METHODS

Ninety participants underwent 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: 30 BAV patients with prior AVR (11 mechanical, 10 bioprosthetic, 9 Ross procedure), 30 BAV patients with a native aortic valve and 30 healthy subjects.

RESULTS

The majority of subjects with mechanical AVR or Ross showed normal flow pattern (73% and 67% respectively) with near normal rotational flow values (7.2 ± 3.9 and 10.6 ± 10.5 mm2/ms respectively vs 3.8 ± 3.1 mm2/s for healthy subjects; both p > 0.05); and reduced in-plane wall shear stress (0.19 ± 0.13 N/m2 for mechanical AVR vs. 0.40 ± 0.28 N/m2 for native BAV, p < 0.05). In contrast, all subjects with a bioprosthetic AVR had abnormal flow patterns (mainly marked right-handed helical flow), with comparable rotational flow values to native BAV (20.7 ± 8.8 mm2/ms and 26.6 ± 16.6 mm2/ms respectively, p > 0.05), and a similar pattern for wall shear stress. Data before and after AVR (n = 16) supported these findings: mechanical AVR showed a significant reduction in rotational flow (30.4 ± 16.3 → 7.3 ± 4.1 mm2/ms; p < 0.05) and in-plane wall shear stress (0.47 ± 0.20 → 0.20 ± 0.13 N/m2; p < 0.05), whereas these parameters remained similar in the bioprosthetic AVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Abnormal flow patterns in BAV disease tend to normalize after mechanical AVR or Ross procedure, in contrast to the remnant abnormal flow pattern after bioprosthetic AVR. This may in part explain different aortic growth rates post AVR in BAV observed in the literature, but requires confirmation in a prospective study.

Pathogenic Mechanisms of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Aortopathy

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital valvular defect and is associated with ascending aortic dilation (AAD) in a quarter of patients. AAD has been ascribed both to the hemodynamic consequences of normally functioning and abnormal BAV morphology, and to the effect of rare and common genetic variation upon function of the ascending aortic media. AAD manifests in two overall and sometimes overlapping phenotypes: that of aortic root aneurysm, similar to the AAD of Marfan syndrome; and that of tubular AAD, similar to the AAD seen with tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs). These aortic phenotypes appear to be independent of BAV phenotype, have different embryologic origins and have unique etiologic factors, notably, regarding the role of hemodynamic changes inherent to the BAV phenotype. Further, in contrast to Marfan syndrome, the AAD seen with BAV is infrequently present as a strongly inherited syndromic phenotype; rather, it appears to be a less-penetrant, milder phenotype. Both reduced levels of normally functioning transcriptional proteins and structurally abnormal proteins have been observed in aneurysmal aortic media. We provide evidence that aortic root AAD has a stronger genetic etiology, sometimes related to identified common non-coding fibrillin-1 (FBN1) variants and other aortic wall protein variants in patients with BAV. In patients with BAV having tubular AAD, we propose a stronger hemodynamic influence, but with pathology still based on a functional deficit of the aortic media, of genetic or epigenetic etiology. Although it is an attractive hypothesis to ascribe common mechanisms to BAV and AAD, thus far the genetic etiologies of AAD have not been associated to the genetic etiologies of BAV, notably, not including BAV variants in NOTCH1 and GATA4.