Differences in heart valve procedures between North American and European centers: A report from the artificial valve endocarditis reduction trial (AVERT)

L. Englberger, T. Carrel, Hartzell V Schaff, E. D. Kennard, R. Holubkov

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and aim of the study: Differences in heart valve procedures between North American (NA) and European (EU) centers were evaluated in a multicenter trial. Methods: Between July 1998 and January 2000, 807 patients from 12 NA (n = 446) and seven EU centers (n = 361) were randomized to receive either Silzone® or conventional valves in the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Subanalysis was performed to compare demographics, patient risk profile, surgical techniques and perioperative management of patients in NA and EU centers. Results: Mean age was significantly younger and body mass index higher in NA. Patients' risk profiles showed significantly higher incidences of previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, prior cardiovascular surgery, and history of smoking in NA. A different distribution of implant position was observed between groups: aortic valve/mitral valve/double valve replacement in 54.0, 35.7 and 10.3% in NA, and 64.5, 27.4 and 8.0% in EU (p <0.01). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 31.6% of NA patients and 19.4% of EU patients (p <0.001). Timing of surgery showed a higher incidence of urgent procedures in NA centers. Distribution of valve sizes and perioperative complication rate were similar, but length of hospital stay was longer in EU centers. Conclusion: Surprisingly, surgeons in NA and EU centers are faced by different patient populations requiring mechanical heart valve replacement. NA patients were younger, but required more extensive surgery. Surgical technique and perioperative management appear to differ in NA and EU centers. These differences in reporting heart valve procedures might have been influenced by variable interpretations of definitions and different patient expectations, although a uniform study protocol with consistent definitions was used at all sites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)562-571
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Heart Valve Disease
Volume10
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Heart Valves
Endocarditis
Length of Stay
Incidence
Aortic Valve
Mitral Valve
Coronary Artery Bypass
Multicenter Studies
Body Mass Index
Heart Failure
Smoking
Myocardial Infarction
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Differences in heart valve procedures between North American and European centers : A report from the artificial valve endocarditis reduction trial (AVERT). / Englberger, L.; Carrel, T.; Schaff, Hartzell V; Kennard, E. D.; Holubkov, R.

In: Journal of Heart Valve Disease, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2001, p. 562-571.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4224ca102a4842ad9b61f0aa82760c74,
title = "Differences in heart valve procedures between North American and European centers: A report from the artificial valve endocarditis reduction trial (AVERT)",
abstract = "Background and aim of the study: Differences in heart valve procedures between North American (NA) and European (EU) centers were evaluated in a multicenter trial. Methods: Between July 1998 and January 2000, 807 patients from 12 NA (n = 446) and seven EU centers (n = 361) were randomized to receive either Silzone{\circledR} or conventional valves in the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Subanalysis was performed to compare demographics, patient risk profile, surgical techniques and perioperative management of patients in NA and EU centers. Results: Mean age was significantly younger and body mass index higher in NA. Patients' risk profiles showed significantly higher incidences of previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, prior cardiovascular surgery, and history of smoking in NA. A different distribution of implant position was observed between groups: aortic valve/mitral valve/double valve replacement in 54.0, 35.7 and 10.3{\%} in NA, and 64.5, 27.4 and 8.0{\%} in EU (p <0.01). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 31.6{\%} of NA patients and 19.4{\%} of EU patients (p <0.001). Timing of surgery showed a higher incidence of urgent procedures in NA centers. Distribution of valve sizes and perioperative complication rate were similar, but length of hospital stay was longer in EU centers. Conclusion: Surprisingly, surgeons in NA and EU centers are faced by different patient populations requiring mechanical heart valve replacement. NA patients were younger, but required more extensive surgery. Surgical technique and perioperative management appear to differ in NA and EU centers. These differences in reporting heart valve procedures might have been influenced by variable interpretations of definitions and different patient expectations, although a uniform study protocol with consistent definitions was used at all sites.",
author = "L. Englberger and T. Carrel and Schaff, {Hartzell V} and Kennard, {E. D.} and R. Holubkov",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "562--571",
journal = "Journal of Heart Valve Disease",
issn = "0966-8519",
publisher = "ICR Publishers Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in heart valve procedures between North American and European centers

T2 - A report from the artificial valve endocarditis reduction trial (AVERT)

AU - Englberger, L.

AU - Carrel, T.

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

AU - Kennard, E. D.

AU - Holubkov, R.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Background and aim of the study: Differences in heart valve procedures between North American (NA) and European (EU) centers were evaluated in a multicenter trial. Methods: Between July 1998 and January 2000, 807 patients from 12 NA (n = 446) and seven EU centers (n = 361) were randomized to receive either Silzone® or conventional valves in the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Subanalysis was performed to compare demographics, patient risk profile, surgical techniques and perioperative management of patients in NA and EU centers. Results: Mean age was significantly younger and body mass index higher in NA. Patients' risk profiles showed significantly higher incidences of previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, prior cardiovascular surgery, and history of smoking in NA. A different distribution of implant position was observed between groups: aortic valve/mitral valve/double valve replacement in 54.0, 35.7 and 10.3% in NA, and 64.5, 27.4 and 8.0% in EU (p <0.01). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 31.6% of NA patients and 19.4% of EU patients (p <0.001). Timing of surgery showed a higher incidence of urgent procedures in NA centers. Distribution of valve sizes and perioperative complication rate were similar, but length of hospital stay was longer in EU centers. Conclusion: Surprisingly, surgeons in NA and EU centers are faced by different patient populations requiring mechanical heart valve replacement. NA patients were younger, but required more extensive surgery. Surgical technique and perioperative management appear to differ in NA and EU centers. These differences in reporting heart valve procedures might have been influenced by variable interpretations of definitions and different patient expectations, although a uniform study protocol with consistent definitions was used at all sites.

AB - Background and aim of the study: Differences in heart valve procedures between North American (NA) and European (EU) centers were evaluated in a multicenter trial. Methods: Between July 1998 and January 2000, 807 patients from 12 NA (n = 446) and seven EU centers (n = 361) were randomized to receive either Silzone® or conventional valves in the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Subanalysis was performed to compare demographics, patient risk profile, surgical techniques and perioperative management of patients in NA and EU centers. Results: Mean age was significantly younger and body mass index higher in NA. Patients' risk profiles showed significantly higher incidences of previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angina, prior cardiovascular surgery, and history of smoking in NA. A different distribution of implant position was observed between groups: aortic valve/mitral valve/double valve replacement in 54.0, 35.7 and 10.3% in NA, and 64.5, 27.4 and 8.0% in EU (p <0.01). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 31.6% of NA patients and 19.4% of EU patients (p <0.001). Timing of surgery showed a higher incidence of urgent procedures in NA centers. Distribution of valve sizes and perioperative complication rate were similar, but length of hospital stay was longer in EU centers. Conclusion: Surprisingly, surgeons in NA and EU centers are faced by different patient populations requiring mechanical heart valve replacement. NA patients were younger, but required more extensive surgery. Surgical technique and perioperative management appear to differ in NA and EU centers. These differences in reporting heart valve procedures might have been influenced by variable interpretations of definitions and different patient expectations, although a uniform study protocol with consistent definitions was used at all sites.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034792413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034792413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11603594

AN - SCOPUS:0034792413

VL - 10

SP - 562

EP - 571

JO - Journal of Heart Valve Disease

JF - Journal of Heart Valve Disease

SN - 0966-8519

IS - 5

ER -