Aim To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. Methods A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. Results All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10). Conclusions Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.
LINK
Surgery is aimed at improving a patient's health. However, surgery is plagued with a risk of negative consequences, such as perioperative complications and prolonged hospitalization. Also, achieving preoperative levels of physical functionality may be delayed. Above all, the "waiting" period before the operation and the period of hospitalisation endanger the state of health, especially in frail patients.The Better in Better out™ (BiBo™) strategy is aimed at reducing the risk of a complicated postoperative course through the optimisation and professionalisation of perioperative treatment strategies in a physiotherapy activating context. BiBo™ includes four steps towards optimising personalised health care in patients scheduled for elective surgery: 1) preoperative risk assessment, 2) preoperative patient education, 3) preoperative exercise therapy for high-risk patients (prehabilitation) and 4) postoperative mobilisation and functional exercise therapy.Preoperative screening is aimed at identifying frail, high-risk patients at an early stage, and advising these high-risk patients to participate in outpatient exercise training (prehabilitation) as soon as possible. By improving preoperative physical fitness, a patient is able to better withstand the impact of major surgery and this will lead to both a reduced risk of negative side effects and better short-term outcomes as a result. Besides prehabilitation, treatment culture and infrastructure should be inherently changing in such a way that patients stay as active as they can, socially, mentally and physically after discharge.
Background: Post-term pregnancy, a pregnancy exceeding 294 days or 42 completed weeks, is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality and is considered a high-risk condition which requires specialist surveillance and induction of labour. However, there is uncertainty on the policy concerning the timing of induction for post-term pregnancy or impending post-term pregnancy, leading to practice variation between caregivers. Previous studies on induction at or beyond 41 weeks versus expectant management showed different results on perinatal outcome though conclusions in meta-analyses show a preference for induction at 41 weeks. However, interpretation of the results is hampered by the limited sample size of most trials and the heterogeneity in design. Most control groups had a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour that went far beyond 42 weeks, which does not reflect usual care in The Netherlands where induction of labour at 42 weeks is the regular policy. Thus leaving the question unanswered if induction at 41 weeks results in better perinatal outcomes than expectant management until 42 weeks. Methods/design: In this study we compare a policy of labour induction at 41 + 0/+1 weeks with a policy of expectant management until 42 weeks in obstetrical low risk women without contra-indications for expectant management until 42 weeks and a singleton pregnancy in cephalic position. We will perform a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes will be maternal outcomes as mode of delivery (operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section), need for analgesia and postpartum haemorrhage (≥1000 ml). Maternal preferences, satisfaction, wellbeing, pain and anxiety will be assessed alongside the trial. Discussion: his study will provide evidence for the management of pregnant women reaching a gestational age of 41 weeks.
MULTIFILE
