← Back to Guidelines

2017 ACC/AUC Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease

Appropriate Use Criteria for Clinical Decision-Making

Published: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol 70, No. 13 (September 2017)
Societies: ACC, AATS, AHA, ASE, ASNC, HRS, SCAI, SCCT, SCMR, STS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.732
View Full Guideline PDF

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Rating System

This guideline evaluates 92 clinical scenarios for the use of multimodality imaging in valvular heart disease. Each scenario receives one of three appropriateness ratings:

Appropriate (A)

Score: 7–9 — An appropriate imaging study is one in which the expected incremental information, combined with clinical judgment, exceeds the expected negative consequences by a sufficiently wide margin for a given indication. Median score ≥7.

May Be Appropriate (M)

Score: 4–6 — An appropriate option for management of patients in this population due to benefits generally outweighing risks; may be reasonable depending on physician judgment and patient-specific preferences. Median score 4–6.

Rarely Appropriate (R)

Score: 1–3 — Rarely an appropriate option for management of patients in this population due to lack of a clear benefit/risk advantage. Rarely appropriate options are generally not reasonable and generally should not be performed. Median score ≤3.

Key Principles

  • Multimodality approach: This document evaluates the use of multiple imaging modalities across diverse disease states and clinical scenarios.
  • Clinical judgment: Ratings are intended to inform, not replace, clinical decision-making.
  • Patient selection: All patients are presumed to be appropriate candidates for the procedure under consideration after risk assessment.
  • Qualification: All tests and procedures are assumed to be performed and interpreted by qualified individuals in compliance with national standards.
  • Modality choice: Determination of appropriate imaging modalities may vary between different clinical scenarios based on availability, cost, and clinical context.

Imaging Modalities Overview

The following modalities are evaluated across all clinical scenarios in this guideline:

TTE

Transthoracic Echocardiography — First-line imaging for most VHD scenarios; non-invasive, real-time assessment of valve anatomy and hemodynamics.

TEE

Transesophageal Echocardiography — Higher resolution, posterior structures; indicated when TTE inadequate or for procedural guidance (TAVR, mitral repair).

3D TTE

3-Dimensional Transthoracic Echo — Enhanced spatial anatomy; useful for prosthetic valve assessment and complex morphology.

CMR

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance — No ionizing radiation; excellent for quantifying regurgitation and assessing myocardial fibrosis.

CCT

Cardiac Computed Tomography — High-resolution anatomy; aortic root assessment, coronary assessment, pre-TAVR evaluation.

Nuclear Imaging

Stress Testing (Ex-SE, DSE, RVG) — Assessment of ischemic burden, LV function during stress; less common in VHD but used selectively.

Pearl: TTE is the modality of choice for initial evaluation in nearly all asymptomatic patients. Additional modalities are selected based on specific clinical scenarios (severity assessment, prosthetic valve dysfunction, preprocedural anatomy, etc.).

Initial Evaluation — Asymptomatic Patient

Indications for screening echocardiography in asymptomatic patients with known or suspected valvular disease:

Indication TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE CMR CCT
Unexamined murmur or abnormal heart sounds A R R R R
Reasonable suspicion of VHD A R M R R
History of rheumatic heart disease A R M R R
Exposure to medications that could result in VHD development (e.g., fenfluramine, anorexigens) A R M R R
First-degree family history of a bicuspid aortic valve A R M R R

Note: TTE is Appropriate for all six asymptomatic screening indications. Additional modalities (3D TTE, TEE, CMR, CCT) are not recommended for initial screening; they are reserved for diagnostic clarification in subsequent scenarios.

Initial Evaluation — Symptomatic Patient

Indications for imaging in patients presenting with clinical signs and/or symptoms of VHD:

Clinical Presentation TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE CMR CCT Stress Echo
ARRHYTHMIAS
Palpitations AND no other symptoms of cardiovascular disease M R R R R R
Syncope AND no other symptoms of cardiovascular disease A R M R R M
HYPERTENSION / HEMODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
Hypertension or hemodynamic instability AND uncertain or suspected cardiac etiology A R R R R R
Assessment of volume status in a critically ill patient M R R R R R
Suspected acute mitral or aortic regurgitation A M R R R R
RESPIRATORY FAILURE
Respiratory failure or pulmonary edema of uncertain etiology A M R R R M
Respiratory failure with noncardiac etiology established M R R R R R
HEART FAILURE
Initial evaluation in patients with heart failure to exclude primary or secondary valve disease A R R R R R
BACTEREMIA / ENDOCARDITIS
Suspected IE with positive blood cultures or clinical signs/symptoms A A M R R R
CARDIAC MASS / SOURCE OF EMBOLUS
Suspected cardiac mass, tumor, thrombosis, or potential cardiac source of embolus A A M R M M
Key Takeaway: TTE is Appropriate for nearly all symptomatic presentations. TEE is appropriate for suspected endocarditis and cardiac source of embolus. Stress echo is considered in select cases (syncope, HF without obvious etiology).

Additional Testing to Clarify Diagnosis

When initial TTE imaging is inadequate or equivocal, additional modalities may be needed:

Clinical Scenario TEE 3D TTE 3D TEE CMR CCT
AORTIC STENOSIS
Symptomatic, severe AS by valve area AND low flow/low gradient AND low LVEF R M R R M
Severe AS AND low flow/low gradient AND preserved LVEF for exercise or dobutamine stress measurement R R A R M
Discordance between clinical assessment and TTE about AR severity R A R M R
MITRAL STENOSIS
Discrepancy between TTE findings and clinical symptoms to evaluate mean mitral gradient and mitral area R M A R R
MITRAL REGURGITATION
Severe MR suspected clinically AND inadequately estimated on TTE AND better imaging of MR jet needed R R A M R
ENDOCARDITIS
Suspected IE with moderate to high pretest probability R A M R R
Pitfall: Do not order additional imaging before obtaining adequate-quality TTE. Ensure that TTE images are truly inadequate (body habitus, artifact) and that clinical suspicion warrants further workup before proceeding to TEE, 3D echo, CMR, or CCT.

Sequential Follow-Up Testing — Stable Chronic VHD

Timing and modality for re-evaluation in patients with known, stable VHD:

Clinical Scenario Interval TTE TEE 3D CMR
STAGE A VHD — AT RISK
Routine surveillance for stage A (bicuspid AV or aortic sclerosis) 3–5 years A R R R
MILD–MODERATE VHD (STAGE B)
Re-evaluation of mild (stage B) valvular regurgitation 3–5 years A R R R
Re-evaluation of mild (stage B) VHD without clinical change 1–2 years M R R R
Re-evaluation of moderate (stage B) VHD 1–2 years A R R R
SEVERE VHD (STAGE C)
Re-evaluation of asymptomatic severe (stage C) AS without clinical change 6–12 months M R R R
Re-evaluation for asymptomatic (stage C) AS 1 year A R M R
BICUSPID AORTIC VALVE WITH DILATED AORTA
Re-evaluation of aortic sinuses and ascending aorta in bicuspid AV <4 cm with risk factors (rapid change, family history) Annually A R R A

Do:

  • Use TTE at baseline and for surveillance in asymptomatic patients with stage B and C VHD
  • Adjust surveillance intervals based on severity (more frequent for severe disease)
  • Re-evaluate sooner if clinical status changes or new symptoms develop
  • Consider imaging annually in patients with asymptomatic severe AS to monitor for symptom onset

Follow-Up Testing — New or Worsening Symptoms

When patients with known VHD develop new or worsening symptoms, re-evaluation is warranted:

Indication TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE / CMR
Re-evaluation of IE when clinical status changes or to guide therapy A A M

Endocarditis is the primary scenario in this table. Both TTE and TEE are Appropriate when patients with known or suspected endocarditis develop clinical changes indicating disease progression or complications requiring intervention.

Postoperative Imaging After Surgical Valve Replacement or Repair

Imaging protocols for patients undergoing surgical valve intervention:

Scenario Timing TTE TEE 3D TTE CMR
SURGICAL VALVE REPLACEMENT (NO DYSFUNCTION)
Initial evaluation of bioprosthetic or mechanical valve for baseline (6 w to 3 m) 6–12 weeks A R R R
Re-evaluation (<3 y) of bioprosthetic or mechanical valve if no dysfunction <3 years M R R R
Re-evaluation (≥3 y) of bioprosthetic or mechanical valve if no dysfunction ≥3 years A R R R
SURGICAL VALVE REPLACEMENT (SUSPICION OF DYSFUNCTION)
Characterization of mechanical prosthetic valve if clinical signs suggesting dysfunction As needed A A M R
Characterization of bioprosthetic valve if clinical signs suggesting dysfunction As needed A A M R
SURGICAL VALVE REPAIR
Initial postoperative assessment of valve repair (6 w to 3 m) 6–12 weeks A R M R
Re-evaluation (<3 y) without suspected dysfunction <3 years R R R R
Re-evaluation (–3 y) for suspected repaired valve dysfunction As needed A M M R
Key Insight: Establish a baseline TTE 6–12 weeks after surgical valve replacement or repair. For stable prosthetic valves without symptoms, routine re-evaluation depends on valve type and surgeon preference, but TTE remains the modality of choice. Suspect dysfunction warrants prompt TTE ± TEE.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

Multimodality imaging is essential for TAVR patient selection, procedural guidance, and postprocedural assessment:

Pre-TAVR Evaluation

Assessment TTE TEE 3D TTE CMR CCT
Assessment for concomitant coronary artery disease R R R M A
Accurate assessment of annulus size and shape of calcification R A M R A
Assessment of number of aortic cusps and degree of calcification A A M R A
Measurement of the distance between annulus and the coronary ostia R M R R A
Precise coaxial alignment of the implant within the centerline R R R R A
Assessment of aortic dimensions R M R R A

Intraprocedural TAVR Imaging

Procedural Guidance TTE TEE 3D TTE Angio Fluoro
Guidewire placement into the LV A A M M A
Valve placement A A M A A
Postdeployment assessment (position, function, regurgitation) A A A A A
Evaluate immediate complications A A A A A

Postprocedural TAVR Assessment

Postprocedural Assessment TTE 3D TTE CMR CCT Brain MRI
Assessment of aortic regurgitation (including paravalvular) A A M R R
Assessment of stroke with suspicion of aortic dysfunction A M R R A

TAVR Imaging Summary:

  • Pre-procedural: CCT is primary for anatomy planning; TEE and 3D TTE are complementary
  • Intraprocedural: Both TTE and TEE are Appropriate for guidewire, positioning, and complication assessment
  • Postprocedural: TTE ± 3D for AR and valve function; brain MRI if stroke suspected

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair (MitraClip)

Imaging for MitraClip patient selection, procedural guidance, and follow-up:

Pre-Procedure Evaluation

Assessment TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE Exercise CMR
Determine patient eligibility A A A A M
Exclude intracardiac mass, thrombus, or vegetation M A M R R

Intraprocedural Mitral Valve Repair

Intraprocedural Guidance TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE Angio/Fluoro
Alignment of the device over the regurgitant jet origin and advance to LV R A A A
Guidance for grasping the mitral valve leaflets and device closure R A A A
Assess adequacy in the reduction of the MR M A M A
Assess for presence of mitral stenosis M A M R

Postprocedural Mitral Valve Repair Assessment

Postprocedural Assessment TTE TEE (3D) 3D TTE Exercise CMR
Reassessment of MR and left ventricular function (predischarge, 1, 6, 12 m, annually to 5 y) A R M M M
Key Point: TEE with 3D capability is essential for intraprocedural guidance during MitraClip. Pre-procedure evaluation with TTE, TEE, and/or 3D TTE determines eligibility. Postprocedure, TTE is the standard for surveillance of MR reduction and mitral stenosis development.

Related Calculators

Use these calculators to quantify valve lesions and assess severity in the context of the imaging scenarios above:

Integration with Clinical Decision-Making

These calculators support the imaging-based assessment described throughout this guideline. Use them to:

  • Quantify valve lesion severity (mild, moderate, severe)
  • Assess hemodynamic burden and prognostic impact
  • Guide timing of intervention in asymptomatic patients
  • Support risk–benefit discussions with patients