The Arterial Switch Operation in Europe for Transposition of the Great Arteries: a Multi-Institutional Study from the European Congenital Heart Surgeons Association

OBJECTIVES: This study analyzes the results of the arterial switch operation for transposition of the great arteries in member institutions of the European Congenital Heart Surgeons Association. METHODS: The records of 613 patients who underwent primary arterial switch operations in each of 19 participating institutions in the period from January 1998 through December 2000 were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A ventricular septal defect was present in 186 (30%) patients. Coronary anatomy was type A in 69% of the patients, and aortic arch pathology was present in 20% of patients with ventricular septal defect. Rashkind septostomy was performed in 75% of the patients, and 69% received prostaglandin. There were 37 hospital deaths (operative mortality, 6%), 13 (3%) for patients with an intact ventricular septum and 24 (13%) for those with a ventricular septal defect (P < .001). In 36% delayed sternal closure was performed, 8% required peritoneal dialysis, and 2% required mechanical circulatory support. Median ventilation time was 58 hours, and intensive care and hospital stay were 6 and 14 days, respectively. Although of various preoperative risk factors the presence of a ventricular septal defect, arch pathology, and coronary anomalies were univariate predictors of operative mortality, only the presence of a ventricular septal defect approached statistical significance (P = .06) on multivariable analysis. Of various operative parameters, aortic crossclamp time and delayed sternal closure were also univariate predictors; however, only the latter was an independent statistically significant predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the procedure in European centers are compatible with those in the literature. The presence of a ventricular septal defect is the clinically most important preoperative risk factor for operative death, approaching statistical significance on multivariable analysis.

Cancer Rehabilitation Indicators for Europe

Little is known of cancer rehabilitation needs in Europe. EUROCHIP-3 organised a group of experts to propose a list of population-based indicators used for describing cancer rehabilitation across Europe. The aim of this study is to present and discuss these indicators. A EUROCHIP-3 expert panel reached agreement on two types of indicators. (a) Cancer prevalence indicators. These were proposed as a means of characterising the burden of cancer rehabilitation needs by time from diagnosis and patient health status. These indicators can be estimated from cancer registry data or by collecting data on follow-up and treatments for samples of cases archived in cancer registries. (b) Indicators of rehabilitation success. These include: return to work, quality of life, and satisfaction of specific rehabilitation needs. Studies can be performed to estimate these indicators in individual countries, but to obtain comparable data across European countries it will be necessary to administer a questionnaire to randomly selected samples of patients from population-based cancer registry databases. However, three factors complicate questionnaire studies: patients may not be aware that they have cancer; incomplete participation in surveys could lead to bias; and national confidentiality laws in some cases prohibit cancer registries from approaching patients. Although these studies are expensive and difficult to perform, but as the number of cancer survivors increases, it is important to document their needs in order to provide information on cancer control.

A Review of National Guidelines for Management of COPD in Europe

The quality of care can be improved by the development and implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines. Different national guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exist in Europe and relevant differences may exist among them.This was an evaluation of COPD treatment guidelines published in Europe and Russia in the past 7 years. Each guideline was reviewed in detail and information about the most important aspects of patient diagnosis, risk stratification and pharmacotherapy was extracted following a standardised process. Guidelines were available from the Czech Republic, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Sweden. The treatment goals, criteria for COPD diagnosis, consideration of comorbidities in treatment selection and support for use of long-acting bronchodilators, were similar across treatment guidelines. There were differences in measures used for stratification of disease severity, consideration of patient phenotypes, criteria for the use of inhaled corticosteroids and recommendations for other medications (e.g. theophylline and mucolytics) in addition to bronchodilators.There is generally good agreement on treatment goals, criteria for diagnosis of COPD and use of long-acting bronchodilators as the cornerstone of treatment among guidelines for COPD management in Europe and Russia. However, there are differences in the definitions of patient subgroups and other recommended treatments.