Key result
Guideline-recommended intervention reaches only ~70% of Class I patients with severe rheumatic mitral valve disease.
Why the study?
Practice has evolved over 20 years since the original Euro Heart Survey, requiring updated analysis of severe native or previously intervened valve disease management versus ESC guidelines.
What is the adherence to guideline recommendations and the associated mortality in patients with severe rheumatic mitral valve disease or previous intervention?
Observational (n=802)
Yes
What is the adherence to guideline recommendations and the associated mortality in patients with severe rheumatic mitral valve disease or previous intervention?
Compliance with guideline recommendations for intervention in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease is poor, with only 70% of Class I indicated patients receiving intervention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Suboptimal adherence to Class I recommendations in severe rheumatic mitral valve disease identifies an implementation gap; leaves open whether increasing intervention rates improves outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rheumatic heart disease is the commonest acquired cardiovascular disease worldwide. About 20 years have elapsed since the original Euro Heart Survey on valvular heart disease (VHD) was conducted with multiple changes in practice due to advances in treatment techniques. In this study, we aimed to analyse the management of patients with severe native valve disease or those with previous valvular intervention in comparison with existing European Society of Cardiology guidelines. METHODS: The European Society of Cardiology VHD II registry is an international, prospective, longitudinal multicentre, observational study, which was conducted in 222 centres. The registry included patients with severe native VHD or with previous valvular intervention. Follow-up was undertaken at 6 months at the investigating centre or by telephone. RESULTS: Amongst patients recruited in the European Society of Cardiology VHD II registry, 470 had severe rheumatic mitral valve disease and 332 had previous rheumatic mitral valve intervention. Amongst the patients with Class I recommendation for intervention, it was undertaken in only 70%. Adherence to guideline recommendations was more in patients with native VHD than in those with previous intervention. Total mortality was 1.5% in hospital and 3.5% at 6 months follow-up. Independent predictors of death at 6 months were age, chronic pulmonary disease, New York Heart Association Classes III and IV at presentation, liver dysfunction, and previous myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with guideline recommendations for intervention is poor overall in patients with rheumatic valve disease. Concerted educational efforts are needed to improve the management of this vulnerable patient cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdelhamid et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Rheumatic mitral valve disease (n=802). Guideline-recommended management was evaluated on Adherence to Class I recommendation for intervention. Guideline-recommended intervention for severe rheumatic mitral valve disease was undertaken in only 70% of patients with a Class I recommendation, with 3.5% total mortality at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: