Perioperative care differences of surgical aortic valve replacement between North America and Europe

Abstract

ObjectiveTo describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsPatients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new stented bioprosthesis at 25 centres in North America (Canada and the USA) and 13 centres in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Switzerland and Italy). While all patients underwent implantation with the same bioprosthetic model, perioperative management was left to the discretion of participating centres. Perioperative care was described in detail including outcomes up to 1-year follow-up.ResultsAmong 1118 patients, 643 (58%) were implanted in North America, and 475 (42%) were implanted in Europe. Patients in Europe were older, had a lower body mass index, less bicuspid disease and worse degree of aortic stenosis at baseline. In Europe, anticoagulant therapy at discharge was more aggressive, whereas length of stay was longer, and discharges directly to home were less common. Rehospitalisation risk was lower in Europe at 30 days (8.5% vs 15.9%) but converged at 1-year follow-up (26.5% vs 28.1%). Within continents, there were major differences between individual countries concerning perioperative management.ConclusionContemporary perioperative management of SAVR patients varies between North America and Europe in patient selection, procedural techniques, antithrombotic regimen and discharge management. Furthermore, rehospitalisation differed largely between continents and countries. Hence, geographical setting must be considered during design and interpretation of trials on SAVR.Trial registration numberNCT02088554.

Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve, Microvascular Coronary Health, and Myocardial Remodeling in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

“… 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 However, the optimal timing of the intervention is often unclear, and the patient selection process is not always optimal. 26 , 27 Although transcatheter AVR has been extended to include patients with intermediate and low surgical risk, the potential benefits of this intervention at earlier stages of AS (especially moderate stenosis) remain uncertain. 28 …”