Given the clear benefit in disease-free survival, the low incidence of cardiac adverse events, and the suggestion that cardiac dysfunction might be reversible, adjuvant trastuzumab should be considered for treatment of breast cancer patients who fulfill the HERA trial eligibility criteria.

Mitral valve repair using the MitraClip system was shown to be feasible in patients at high surgical risk primarily determined by an adverse mitral valve morphology and/or severe LV dysfunction.

With acceptable results in a high-risk population, transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as a complementary approach to reoperative mitral valve surgery in select patients.

MitraClip therapy improves clinical and echocardiographic outcomes at 1 year in about three-quarters of critically ill, elderly patients with moderate to severe MR not amenable to surgery.

Clip-based percutaneous mitral valve repair is a safe, low-risk, and effective therapeutic option in symptomatic patients with a high risk for surgery and does not exclude later surgical repair.

Valve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (<23 mm) should be avoided. Implantation into 23-mm xenografts can be recommended only for patients with a body surface area less than 1.8 m(2). Larger prostheses seem to carry a lower risk for PPM. Although no delay in clinical improvement was seen at short-term, 1 PPM-related surgical intervention raises concern regarding long-term performance.

AimsTo assess, and identify predictors of, 2-year adverse outcomes of surgical high-risk patients after successful MitraClip therapy (MC), differentiated by the aetiology of mitral regurgitation (MR). Methods and resultsKaplan -Meier analysis was used to assess survival free from death, heart failure rehospitalization, and reintervention up to 2 years in 202 successfully treated patients [74 + 9 years, 132 men (65%); secondary MR aetiology in 140 patients, primary MR in 62]. Predictors for study endpoints were determined using Cox regression analyses. Mortality was 20% at 1 year and 33% at 2 years in both primary and secondary MR patients; independent predictors of death were reduced forward stroke volume, impaired LV function, and renal failure in primary MR, yet only an increased logistic EuroSCORE in functional MR patients. The rate of rehospitalizations was not different between the patient subgroups for 6 months, but then diverged significantly in favour of primary MR patients (estimated 2-year incidence, primary MR 40% vs. secondary MR 66%). No predictor was found for primary MR patients, but increased LV end-diastolic volume significantly increased the risk of rehospitalization in functional MR patients. Reinterventions were overall rare (7.4% at 1 year, 9.7% at 2 years); primary MR patients required all except one reintervention within 2 months of MC, with again no predictors found, whereas secondary MR patients (all except one with discharge MR of 2+) exhibited a steadily declining freedom from reintervention curve throughout follow-up. ConclusionMR aetiology affects rehospitalization and reintervention, but not mortality, differently after successful MC.--

The patient safety climate is a key element of quality in healthcare. It should be a priority in the healthcare systems of all countries in the world. The goal of patient safety programs is to prevent errors and reduce the potential harm to patients when using healthcare services. A safety climate is also necessary to ensure a safe working environment for healthcare professionals. The attitudes of healthcare workers toward patient safety in various aspects of work, organization and functioning of the ward are important elements of the organization’s safety culture. The aim of this study was to determine the perception of the patient safety climate by healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The study was conducted in five European countries. The Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ) short version was used for the study. A total of 1061 healthcare workers: physicians, nurses and paramedics, participated in this study. Results: All groups received the highest mean results on the stress recognition subscale (SR): nurses 98.77, paramedics 96.39 and physician 98.28. Nurses and physicians evaluated work conditions (WC) to be the lowest (47.19 and 44.99), while paramedics evaluated perceptions of management (PM) as the worst (46.44). Paramedics achieved statistically significantly lower scores compared to nurses and physicians in job satisfaction (JS), stress recognition (SR) and perception of management (PM) (p < 0.0001). Paramedics compared to nurses and physicians rank better in working conditions (WC) in relation to patient safety (16.21%). Most often, persons of lower seniority scored higher in all subscales (p = 0.001). In Poland, Spain, France, Turkey, and Greece, healthcare workers scored highest in stress recognition (SR). In Poland, Spain, France, and Turkey, they assessed working conditions (WC) as the worst, while in Greece, the perception of management (PM) had the lowest result. Conclusion: Participant perceptions about the patient safety climate were not at a particularly satisfactory level, and there is still a need for the development of patient safety culture in healthcare in Europe. Overall, positive working conditions, good management and effective teamwork can contribute to improving employees’ attitudes toward patient safety. This study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic and should be repeated after its completion, and comparative studies will allow for a more precise determination of the safety climate in the assessment of employees.