Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndrome in hospitals of different sizes. A report from the AMIS Plus Registry.

To assess the impact of admission to different hospital types on early and 1-year outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Between 1997 and 2009, 31 010 ACS patients from 76 Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry. Large tertiary institutions with continuous (24 hour/7 day) cardiac catheterisation facilities were classified as type A hospitals, and all others as type B. For 1-year outcomes, a subgroup of patients admitted after 2005 were studied. Eleven type A hospitals admitted 15987 (52%) patients and 65 type B hospitals 15023 (48%) patients. Patients admitted into B hospitals were older, more frequently female, diabetic, hypertensive, had more severe comorbidities and more frequent non-ST segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS/unstable angina (UA). STE-ACS patients admitted into B hospitals received more thrombolysis, but less percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Crude in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were higher in patients from B hospitals. Crude 1-year mortality of 3747 ACS patients followed up was higher in patients admitted into B hospitals, but no differences were found for MACE. After adjustment for age, risk factors, type of ACS and comorbidities, hospital type was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, in-hospital MACE, 1-year MACE or mortality. Admission indicated a crude outcome in favour of hospitalisation during duty-hours while 1-year outcome could not document a significant effect. ACS patients admitted to smaller regional Swiss hospitals were older, had more severe comorbidities, more NSTE-ACS and received less intensive treatment compared with the patients initially admitted to large tertiary institutions. However, hospital type was not an independent predictor of early and mid-term outcomes in these patients. Furthermore, our data suggest that Swiss hospitals have been functioning as an efficient network for the past 12 years.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): state of the art techniques and future perspectives.

Transcatheter aortic valve therapies are the newest established techniques for the treatment of high risk patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The transapical approach requires a left anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, whereas the transfemoral method requires an adequate peripheral vascular access and can be performed fully percutaneously. Alternatively, the trans-subclavian access has been recently proposed as a third promising approach. Depending on the technique, the fine stent-valve positioning can be performed with or without contrast injections. The transapical echo-guided stent-valve implantation without angiography (the Lausanne technique) relies entirely on transoesophageal echocardiogramme imaging for the fine stent-valve positioning and it has been proved that this technique prevents the onset of postoperative contrast-related acute kidney failure. Recent published reports have shown good hospital outcomes and short-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but there are no proven advantages in using the transfemoral or the transapical technique. In particular, the transapical series have a higher mean logistic Euroscore of 27-35%, a procedural success rate above 95% and a mean 30-day mortality between 7.5 and 17.5%, whereas the transfemoral results show a lower logistic Euroscore of 23-25.5%, a procedural success rate above 90% and a 30-day mortality of 7-10.8%. Nevertheless, further clinical trials and long-term results are mandatory to confirm this positive trend. Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve therapies would be the development of intravascular devices for the ablation of the diseased valve leaflets and the launch of new stent-valves with improved haemodynamic, different sizes and smaller delivery systems.