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

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00005 Mar 17, 2025
Unveiling the coronary acetylcholine test: can it help us predict future cardiovascular events?
Escaned J and Paolucci L
free

Flashlight

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00248 Mar 17, 2025
Endovascular treatment of tandem lesions in a novel cadaveric stroke model
Grunwald I et al

Letter to the editor

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00974 Mar 17, 2025
LETTER: An update on changes to the design of the ODIN trial
Sandner S et al
free
Trending articles
57.8

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00386 Feb 3, 2025
Mechanical circulatory support for complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
Ferro E et al
free
39.45

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00725 Nov 19, 2023
A systematic algorithm for large-bore arterial access closure after TAVI: the TAVI-MultiCLOSE study
Rosseel L et al
free
39.45

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00725 Mar 18, 2024
A systematic algorithm for large-bore arterial access closure after TAVI: the TAVI-MultiCLOSE study
Rosseel L et al
free
36

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00448 Jan 15, 2024
Coronary spasm and vasomotor dysfunction as a cause of MINOCA
Yaker ZS et al
free
35.15

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00895 Apr 1, 2024
Percutaneous interventions for pulmonary embolism
Finocchiaro S et al
free
28.5

CLINICAL RESEARCH

10.4244/EIJV11I1A6 May 19, 2015
European expert consensus on rotational atherectomy
Barbato E et al
free
22.55

CLINICAL RESEARCH

10.4244/EIJV12I5A93 Aug 5, 2016
Longer pre-hospital delays and higher mortality in women with STEMI: the e-MUST Registry
Benamer H et al
free
X

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

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved