Caseload management and outcome of patients with aortic stenosis in primary/secondary versus tertiary care settings—design of the IMPULSE enhanced registry
Why the study?
Studies suggest that up to 42% of patients with aortic stenosis are not treated according to recommendations, prompting an evaluation of caseload, management, and treatment appropriateness across centres with and without onsite surgical and percutaneous access.
Does management in tertiary care settings compared to primary/secondary care settings improve outcomes and treatment appropriateness in patients with aortic stenosis?
Population
Estimated 800 patients with AS
Comparison
Tertiary care centres with onsite surgery and percutaneous access vs primary/secondary satellite centres
Design
International multicentre prospective observational cohort registry
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Registry data across care settings may clarify real-world AS management gaps; leaves open whether interventions can improve guideline adherence.
Structured PICO
Does management in tertiary care settings compared to primary/secondary care settings improve outcomes and treatment appropriateness in patients with aortic stenosis?
P
Population
Estimated 800 patients with aortic stenosis (AS)
I
Intervention
Management in tertiary care hospitals (central full access centres with onsite access to surgery and percutaneous treatments)
C
Comparator
Management in primary/secondary care hospitals (satellite centres without onsite access)
O
Outcome
Caseload management, outcome of patients with AS, and appropriateness of treatments
The IMPULSE registry is designed to evaluate the caseload, management, and outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis across different levels of care.
Cite This Study
Rudolph et al. (2019) studied this question.