29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Standards defining a ‘Heart Valve Centre’: ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery Viewpoint

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document.

            The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair). Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Infective endocarditis in Europe: lessons from the Euro heart survey.

              To describe the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of active infective endocarditis (IE) in Europe. Prospective survey of medical practices in Europe. 92 centres from 25 countries. The EHS (Euro heart survey) on valvar heart disease (VHD) enrolled 5001 adult patients between April and July 2001. Of those, 159 had active IE. 118 patients (74%) had native IE and 41 (26%) had prosthetic IE. Mean (SD) age was 57 (16) years. Blood cultures were obtained for 113 patients (71%) before antibiotic treatment was started. Surgery was performed in 52% of patients. Reasons for surgery were heart failure in 60%, persistent sepsis in 40%, vegetation size in 48%, or embolism in 18%. Surgery was for implantation of mechanical prosthesis in 63%, bioprosthesis in 21%, aortic homograft in 5%, and valve repair in 11%. In-hospital mortality was 12.6%, being 10.4% in the medical group and 15.6% in the surgical group. Among the total population of 5001 patients, only 50% of those with native VHD had been educated on endocarditis prophylaxis and only 33% regularly attended dental follow up. Of patients with IE who had had a procedure at risk during the preceding year only 50% had received adequate prophylaxis. The EHS on VHD shows that patients with active IE have a high risk profile and often undergo surgery. However, there are deficiencies in obtaining blood cultures and applying prophylaxis. Mortality remains high, which is a justification for the improvement of patient management through education and the implementation of guidelines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                European Heart Journal
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0195-668X
                1522-9645
                July 21 2017
                July 21 2017
                : 38
                : 28
                : 2177-2183
                Article
                10.1093/eurheartj/ehx370
                28838053
                fa73fb7e-4433-453c-8e52-2266848c8572
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article