Introduction
Valvular heart disease (VHD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK. For clinicians, navigating the landscape of clinical guidelines is essential for delivering evidence-based care. Two major authorities publish guidance on VHD: the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). While both aim to improve patient outcomes, their approaches, scope, and practical application can differ. This comparison focuses on the latest NICE guideline (NG208, published in 2021) and the anticipated 2025 ESC guidelines, drawing on the 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for current practice, highlighting key differences and practical implications for UK clinicians.
See how this translates to practice: Explore our Clinical governance features, visit the Patient Safety Hub, or review Clinical Safety & Assurance for enterprise rollout.
Diagnosis and Initial Assessment
The foundation of good VHD management rests on accurate diagnosis and risk stratification. Both guidelines agree on core principles but differ in procedural detail.
NICE NG208 (2021)
- Focus on Accessibility: Emphasises transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) as the first-line diagnostic tool, aligning with UK healthcare system access.
- Symptom Assessment: Stresses the importance of a detailed history and clinical examination to identify symptoms and signs suggestive of severe VHD.
- Structured Reporting: Recommends that TTE reports explicitly comment on valve morphology, severity, haemodynamic consequences (chamber size, function, pressures), and suitability for intervention.
- Multidisciplinary Team (MDT): Mandates discussion by a dedicated heart valve MDT for all people considered for intervention.
ESC (2021/2025 Projected)
- Comprehensive Phenotyping: Advocates for a more extensive use of additional imaging modalities beyond TTE. Stress echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and computed tomography (CT) are integrated earlier for assessing viability, anatomy (particularly for transcatheter interventions), and borderline cases.
- Risk Scores: Formally incorporates risk prediction models (e.g., EuroSCORE II, STS Score) into the assessment for intervention.
- Exercise Testing: Has a stronger emphasis on objective exercise testing (e.g., cardiopulmonary exercise testing or 6-minute walk test) to unmask symptoms in apparently asymptomatic patients with severe VHD.
Key Difference: ESC guidelines are typically more detailed and protocol-driven regarding advanced imaging and objective functional assessment. NICE provides a robust framework suitable for the NHS, focusing on the essential pathway from TTE to MDT discussion.
Treatment Recommendations
This area sees the most significant divergence, particularly in the timing of intervention and the choice of valve prosthesis.
Severe Aortic Stenosis (AS)
- NICE: Recommends intervention for symptomatic severe AS. For asymptomatic severe AS, intervention is considered if there is LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%), an abnormal exercise test, or a rapid increase in peak velocity (≥0.3 m/s per year). NICE is generally more conservative in asymptomatic patients.
- ESC: Has a broader set of Class IIa recommendations for asymptomatic patients, including very severe AS (peak velocity >5.5 m/s), severe valve calcification with rapid progression, and a markedly elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. This reflects a trend towards earlier intervention to prevent irreversible myocardial damage.
Aortic Valve Replacement: Surgical (SAVR) vs Transcatheter (TAVI)
- NICE (2021 update): This was a major shift. NICE recommends TAVI as an option for all risk groups (low, intermediate, high surgical risk), provided the heart team agrees it is suitable. The choice between SAVR and TAVI should be based on individual patient factors, including anatomy, life expectancy, and preferences.
- ESC (2021): Takes a more age- and pathway-based approach. SAVR is the recommended first-line option for patients <75 years old and those at low surgical risk. TAVI is preferred for patients >75 years old and those at high or prohibitive surgical risk. The 2025 guidelines may evolve this further towards an anatomy- and life-expectancy-based decision, similar to NICE.
Choice of Prosthesis
- NICE: States that the choice of prosthesis (mechanical vs bioprosthetic) should be a shared decision with the patient, considering their views on anticoagulation and lifetime risk of reoperation.
- ESC: Provides more specific, age-based recommendations (e.g., mechanical prosthesis for patients <60 years, bioprosthesis for patients >65 years), with the 60-65 year range as a grey zone for shared decision-making.
Mitral Regurgitation (MR)
- Both guidelines recommend mitral valve repair over replacement for primary (degenerative) MR where possible.
- For secondary (functional) MR, the ESC guidelines provide a more nuanced approach based on LV function and viability, and have incorporated evidence for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) in selected symptomatic patients with severe secondary MR despite optimal medical therapy. NICE covers TEER but within its broader technology appraisal guidance.
Special Situations
Pregnancy and VHD
- NICE: Has specific recommendations within its VHD guideline, advising pre-pregnancy counselling and MDT management for women with significant VHD. Intervention before pregnancy is recommended for severe symptomatic VHD.
- ESC: Addresses pregnancy in a dedicated separate guideline, offering very detailed management pathways, which can be a useful supplementary resource for UK specialists managing complex cases.
Infective Endocarditis (IE) Prophylaxis
- This is a major point of divergence. NICE (CG64) recommends antibiotic prophylaxis only for patients undergoing a dental procedure who have a history of IE. It does not recommend prophylaxis based on valve lesion alone.
- ESC recommends antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk patients (e.g., prosthetic valves, previous IE, certain congenital heart diseases) undergoing high-risk dental procedures.
- Practical Takeaway: This creates a clear conflict for UK clinicians. Local policy often follows NICE, but clinicians should be aware of the ESC position, especially when managing high-risk patients or those who travel frequently to Europe.
Practical Clinical Flow in the UK Context
A pragmatic UK pathway synthesising both guidelines would be:
- Suspicion/Screening: History, examination, murmur detection.
- Confirmatory Diagnosis: Refer for TTE (per NICE).
- Stratification: If TTE confirms severe VHD, refer to Heart Valve MDT. Consider additional imaging (CMR/CT) or exercise testing if findings are borderline or symptoms are equivocal (incorporating ESC detail).
- MDT Discussion: The core decision-making step. The MDT should assess symptoms, valve severity, comorbidities, surgical risk, and anatomy.
- For AS: Discuss TAVI vs SAVR based on patient factors, not just age, as per NICE.
- For MR: Prioritise repair for primary MR; assess suitability for TEER for secondary MR.
- Shared Decision-Making: Discuss intervention risks/benefits and choice of prosthesis with the patient.
- Long-term Follow-up: Arrange appropriate monitoring post-intervention or for conservative management.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for UK Clinicians
1. Which guideline should I follow in my NHS practice?
NICE NG208 represents the official UK standard of care and should be the primary reference. However, the ESC guidelines offer valuable, more detailed evidence and advanced management strategies. The Heart Valve MDT is the appropriate forum to discuss and apply ESC recommendations on a case-by-case basis where they may benefit individual patients beyond the NICE baseline.
2. How should I manage the conflict regarding antibiotic endocarditis prophylaxis?
Adhere to local NHS Trust policy, which is almost universally based on NICE CG64. Document this decision clearly. For patients expressing concern or with an exceptionally high-risk profile, a careful discussion about the differing guidelines is prudent.
3. A 78-year-old fit patient with severe symptomatic AS is referred. Does NICE or ESC guide the choice between TAVI and SAVR?
NICE's 2021 update is directly applicable here. It supports offering TAVI or SAVR across all risk groups. The decision should be made by the MDT based on anatomy, frailty, life expectancy, and patient preference. The ESC's age-based (＞75 years) recommendation would also favour TAVI, so both guidelines are aligned in this scenario.
4. How should I manage an asymptomatic 65-year-old with "very severe" AS (peak velocity 5.6 m/s)?
NICE would not strongly recommend intervention unless other criteria (LV dysfunction, abnormal exercise test) are met. The ESC guidelines (Class IIa recommendation) would support considering intervention due to the very high velocity. This is a classic case for MDT discussion to weigh the benefits of early intervention against the risks of a prosthetic valve.
5. Where can I find the most up-to-date information?
Guidelines are living documents. Always check for updates:
- NICE: The NG208 page on the NICE website includes any published updates.
- ESC: The ESC website publishes new guidelines and focused updates. The 2025 VHD guidelines will be announced here upon release.
Source Links
- NICE Guideline NG208 (2021): NICE NG208
- ESC/EACTS Guidelines (2021): ESC guideline: valvular heart disease
- NICE Clinical Knowledge Summary (CKS) on IE Prophylaxis: NICE CKS: endocarditis prophylaxis