In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

We use cookies to optimise the design of this website and make continuous improvement. By continuing your visit, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn more

Cardiovascular Surgery

Position Papers and Consensus Documents from the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery



Surgical and interventional management of mitral valve regurgitation

A position statement from the European Society of CardiologyWorking Groups on Cardiovascular Surgery and Valvular Heart Disease

Read the full text

Authors: Michele De Bonis, Nawwar Al-Attar, Manuel Antunes, Michael Borger, Filip Casselman, Volkmar Falk, Thierry Folliguet, Bernard Iung, Patrizio Lancellotti, Salvatore Lentini, Francesco Maisano, David Messika-Zeitoun, Claudio Muneretto, Phillipe Pibarot, Luc Pierard, Prakash Punjabi, Raphael Rosenhek, Piotr Suwalski, Alec Vahanian, Olaf Wendler, Bernard Prendergast

References: Eur Heart J (2014); DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv322; First published online: 7 July 2015

Mitral regurgitation (MR) has a prevalence of 2% in the general population and is even more common in the elderly.1 Organic (or primary) MR arises as a result of pathology affecting one or more components of the mitral valve (MV) apparatus, whereas functional (or secondary) MR is a consequence of annular dilatation and geometrical distortion of the sub-valvular apparatus secondary to left ventricular (LV) remodelling and dyssynchrony, most usually associated with cardiomyopathy or coronary artery disease.

Primary MR is usually a consequence of degenerative disease, which may remain asymptomatic for many years—intervention has generally been withheld until the onset of symptoms or evidence of haemodynamic decompensation. However, treatment algorithms have been redefined in recent years as a result of the excellent outcomes of surgical repair. International guidelines now recommend risk stratification and earlier intervention when the probability of durable repair is high and when surgery can be undertaken by experienced teams with high repair rates and low operative mortality and morbidity.

Secondary MR has worse prognosis and treatment options are complex, including optimized medical therapy, biventricular pacing, valve surgery (with or without revascularization), long-term LV assist devices or cardiac transplantation. Surgery is challenging with inferior outcomes than in primary MR and the indications and choice of technique are not supported by robust evidence.

In recent years, a variety of approaches to percutaneous treatment of primary and secondary MR has emerged. The most widely adopted has been the edge-to-edge (EE) procedure with promising results in large registries and small randomized trials. Meanwhile, numerous alternative technologies (including percutaneous MV replacement) are in development.

Herein, a Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Groups on Cardiovascular Surgery and Valvular Heart Disease outline the indications and limitations of surgical and percutaneous treatment of MR, and propose recommendations for case selection, team working and outcome monitoring.

Expert position paper on the management of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Joint paper with the WG on Cardiovascular Surgery

Read the full text 

Authors: Miguel Sousa-Uva, Robert Storey, Kurt Huber, Volkmar Falk, Adeline Leite-Moreira, Julien Amour, Nawwar Al- Attar, Raimondo Ascione, David Taggart , and Jean-Philippe Collet

References: Eur Heart J (2014); doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu158; First published online: April 18, 2014

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related bleeding complications and perioperative coronary events are strongly influenced by the management of antithrombotic therapy before and after CABG. Bleeding but also blood products transfusion increase the risk of death and compromise the long-term benefits of CABG.1 The use of new P2Y12 inhibitors, increasing pre-CABG percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with drug eluting stents (DES) requiring specific antiplatelet regimens, and advances in surgical technique has prompted the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis to review the evidence of peri-CABG recommendations on antithrombotic management. Due to the paucity of randomized trials, most of the evidence is still derived from observational studies and expert consensus, further reinforcing the importance of a multidisciplinary consultation for optimal decision making.