DOI:

A rare publication with a unique message: the joint guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Davide Capodanno

This February issue is special because it contains only one article, but what an article! In fact, we are co-publishing the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery on the management of valvular heart disease. We also have a timely editorial by Catherine Otto, first author of the joint American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines on the same topic, which illustrates the main similarities and differences of the two documents that come from either side of the Atlantic. On this occasion, I would like to thank the European Society of Cardiology for allowing the co-publication of this document in our Journal and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, with its Board and Presidential trio, for their support in carrying out this request. I was part of the Task Force that drafted these guidelines, so I will refrain from personal comments on the contents. Social media, as always, has amplified the discussion around guidelines presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress – which is positive for their broad dissemination and uptake. I have a feeling that the key principles of this document have been well-received, without divisions that go beyond the normal and fair scientific debate. After all, these are guidelines produced by the European Society of Cardiology together with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, which represents the most exemplary illustration of the Heart Team concept that is interwoven transversally throughout the document. Unsurprisingly, and in general, the guidelines methodology is debated. Catherine Otto, in her Editorial, mentions some aspects that can be improved upon with a view to creating an ever-better process. What I have learned as an author, however, is that the process is more solid than what I, myself, could have expected as a reader (and of course, you can decide to trust me or not). The process is intended to foster debate, representing different opinions and the involvement not only of the multidisciplinary components of the task force, but of countless reviewers as well. Contrary to more conspiratorial views, from what I can testify from my own personal experience, this is not a process that allows overly extreme or potentially biased opinions to take the lead. A methodological review is undertaken and strict rounds of votes with prespecified criteria are required before the several rounds of review process begin. I have seen some who are reluctant to reconcile their positions converge after long discussions in the interest of science and community service. I have no counterevidence to support this, but I would like to think that different people, using the same methodology and moving from the same extremes, would reach the same recommendations. That said, guidelines exist to inform readers about best practices regarding the treatment of certain conditions. It is up to us to read and interpret them for what they are: a practical guide that does not replace decisions based on science, experience and conscience, all in the best interests of our patients.

Supplementary data

To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.

Volume 17 Number 14
Feb 4, 2022
Volume 17 Number 14
View full issue

Suggested by Cory

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00009 Jun 16, 2025
Guideline recommendations for QFR should be revisited: pros and cons
Fearon W and Biscaglia S

Flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00795 Jun 16, 2025
Transcaval transcatheter aortic valve implantation via left-sided venous access
Doyle C and Casserly I

Letter to the editor

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00325 Jun 16, 2025
Reply: Completeness or complexity? A nuanced reflection on multivessel revascularisation
Laudani C et al
free

Letter to the editor

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00197 Jun 16, 2025
Letter: Completeness or complexity? A nuanced reflection on multivessel revascularisation
Sticchi A and Biondi-Zoccai G
free

Research Correspondence

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-01048 Jun 16, 2025
Next-day and 48-hour discharge following alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Zendo Y et al
Trending articles
310.93

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
172.13

Focus article

10.4244/EIJY19M08_01 Jan 17, 2020
EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
Glikson M et al
free
91.35

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01296 Aug 27, 2021
Management of cardiogenic shock
Thiele H et al
free
76.25

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
56.65

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01155 Oct 20, 2021
A deep learning algorithm for detecting acute myocardial infarction
Liu W et al
free
35

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00331 May 21, 2025
One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial
Jang Y et al
open access
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved