ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies’ Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 – 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.

The 2011-12 pilot European Sentinel Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: in-hospital results in 4,571 patients

AIMS The aim of this prospective multinational registry is to assess and identify predictors of in-hospital outcome and complications of contemporary TAVI practice. METHODS AND RESULTS The Transcatheter Valve Treatment Sentinel Pilot Registry is a prospective independent consecutive collection of individual patient data entered into a web-based case record form (CRF) or transferred from compatible national registries. A total of 4,571 patients underwent TAVI between January 2011 and May 2012 in 137 centres of 10 European countries. Average age was 81.4±7.1 years with equal representation of the two sexes. Logistic EuroSCORE (20.2±13.3), access site (femoral approach: 74.2%), type of anaesthesia and duration of hospital stay (9.3±8.1 days) showed wide variations among the participating countries. In-hospital mortality (7.4%), stroke (1.8%), myocardial infarction (0.9%), major vascular complications (3.1%) were similar in the SAPIEN XT and CoreValve (p=0.15). Mortality was lower in transfemoral (5.9%) than in transapical (12.8%) and other access routes (9.7%; p<0.01). Advanced age, high logistic EuroSCORE, pre-procedural ≥grade 2 mitral regurgitation and deployment failure predicted higher mortality at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS Increased operator experience and the refinement of valve types and delivery catheters may explain the lower rate of mortality, stroke and vascular complications than in historical studies and registries.

Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND There is great variability for the type of anaesthesia used during TAVI, with no clear consensus coming from comparative studies or guidelines. We sought to detect regional differences in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Europe and to evaluate the relationship between type of anaesthesia and in-hospital and 1year outcome. METHODS Between January 2011 and May 2012 the Sentinel European TAVI Pilot Registry enrolled 2807 patients treated via a transfemoral approach using either local (LA-group, 1095 patients, 39%) or general anaesthesia (GA-group, 1712 patients, 61%). RESULTS A wide variation in LA use was evident amongst the 10 participating countries. The use of LA has increased over time (from a mean of 37.5% of procedures in the first year, to 57% in last 6months, p<0.01). MI, major stroke as well as in-hospital death rate (7.0% LA vs 5.3% GA, p=0.053) had a similar incidence between groups, confirmed in multivariate regression analysis after adjusting for confounders. Dividing our population in tertiles according to the Log-EuroSCORE we found similar mortality under LA, whilst mortality was higher in the highest risk tertile under GA. Survival at 1year, compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis, was similar between groups (log-rank: p=0.1505). CONCLUSIONS Selection of anaesthesia appears to be more influenced by national practice and operator preference than patient characteristics. In the absence of an observed difference in outcomes for either approach, there is no compelling argument to suggest that operators and centres should change their anaesthetic practice.