Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and where appropriate and necessary the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.

No abstract

First-line administration of coagulation factor concentrates combined with point-of-care testing was associated with decreased incidence of blood transfusion and thrombotic/thromboembolic events.

Background-The risk of stroke after transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to dislodgement and subsequent embolization of debris from aortic arch atheroma or from the calcified valve itself ranges between 2% and 10%. The rate of clinically silent cerebral ischemia is unknown but may be even higher. Methods and Results-Thirty-two patients who underwent TAVI with the use of a balloon-expandable (nϭ22) or self-expandable (nϭ10) stent valve prosthesis were included in this descriptive study and compared with a historical control group of 21 patients undergoing open surgical aortic valve replacement. Periprocedural apparent and silent cerebral ischemia was assessed by neurological testing and serial cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at baseline, at 3.4 (2.5 to 4.4) days after the procedure, and at 3 months. TAVI was successful in all patients. After the procedure, new foci of restricted diffusion on cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging were found in 27 of 32 TAVI patients (84%)

Disclaimer 2017: The EACTS Guidelines represent the views of the EACTS and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their dating. The EACTS is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between these Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EACTS Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EACTS Guidelines do not in any way whatsoever override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and, where appropriate and/or necessary, in consultation with that patient and the patient's care provider. Nor do EACTS Guidelines exempt health professionals from giving full and careful consideration to the relevant official, updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Thus, RIPC during isoflurane but not during propofol anesthesia decreased myocardial damage in patients undergoing CABG surgery. Accordingly, effects of RIPC evoked by upper limb ischemia/reperfusion depend on background anesthesia, with combined RIPC/isoflurane exerting greater beneficial effects under conditions studied.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new therapeutic option in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.AimsPARTNER EU is the first study to evaluate prospectively the procedural and mid-term outcomes of transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA) implantation of the Edwards SAPIEN® valve involving a multi-disciplinary approach.Methods and resultsPrimary safety endpoints were 30 days and 6 months mortality. Primary efficacy endpoints were haemodynamic and functional improvement at 12 months. One hundred and thirty patients (61 TF, 69 TA), aged 82.1 ± 5.5 years were included. TA patients had higher logistic EuroSCORE (33.8 vs. 25.7%, P = 0.0005) and more peripheral disease (49.3 vs. 16.4%, P< 0.0001). Procedures were aborted in four TA (5.8%) and six TF cases (9.8%). Valve implantation was successful in the remaining patients in 95.4 and 96.4%, respectively. Thirty days and 6 months survival were 81.2 and 58.0% (TA) and 91.8 and 90.2% (TF). In both groups, mean aortic gradient decreased from 46.9 ± 18.1 to 10.9 ± 5.4 mmHg 6 months post-TAVI. In total, 78.1 and 84.8% of patients experienced significant improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, whereas 73.9 and 72.7% had improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores in TA and TF cohorts, respectively.ConclusionThis first team-based multi-centre European TAVI registry shows promising results in high-risk patients treated by TF or TA delivery. Survival rates differ significantly between TF and TA groups and probably reflect the higher risk profile of the TA cohort. Optimal patient screening, approach selection, and device refinement may improve outcomes.