Introduction: Over the years, disease registers have been increasingly considered a source of reliable and valuable population studies. However, the validity and reliability of data from registers may be limited by missing data, selection bias or data quality not adequately evaluated or checked. This study reports the analysis of the consistency and completeness of the data in the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register. Methods: The Register collects, through a standardized Web-based Application, unique patients. Data are exported bimonthly and evaluated to assess the updating and completeness, and to check the quality and consistency. Eight clinical indicators are evaluated. Results: The Register counts 77,628 patients registered by 126 centres. The number of centres has increased over time, as their capacity to collect patients. The percentages of updated patients (with at least one visit in the last 24 months) have increased from 33% (enrolment period 2000–2015) to 60% (enrolment period 2016–2022). In the cohort of patients registered after 2016, there were ≥ 75% updated patients in 30% of the small centres (33), in 9% of the medium centres (11), and in all the large centres (2). Clinical indicators show significant improvement for the active patients, expanded disability status scale every 6 months or once every 12 months, visits every 6 months, first visit within 1 year and MRI every 12 months. Conclusions: Data from disease registers provide guidance for evidence-based health policies and research, so methods and strategies ensuring their quality and reliability are crucial and have several potential applications.

Objective: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the elderly, and its treatment may be either surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVI). Although age is one of the main determinants of the therapeutic choice, current guidelines leave a “discrepancy area” between 65 and 75 years, with the American guidelines allowing TAVI for patients older than 65 years, while the European guidelines consider TAVI for patients older than 75 years. The present study addresses the outcomes of SAVR vs. TAVI in a real-world population aged 65 to 80 years, that is, one largely inclusive of the discrepancy area. Methods: This is a retrospective registry study based on data retrieved from administrative health databases of two large Italian regions (Lombardy and Puglia). Patients aged 65 to 80 years receiving either SAVR or a TAVI between 2018 and 2021 were selected. SAVR and TAVI outcomes (death, cardiac and non-cardiac events) were compared using a propensity-matching analysis, with a follow-up of 2 to 5 years and mortality as the primary outcome. Results: After propensity matching, two groups of 786 patients were compared in Lombardy and two groups of 321 patients were compared in Puglia. In both regions, at the end of follow-up, mortality was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in SAVR vs. TAVI (24.6% vs. 47.2% in Lombardy and 18.1% vs. 44.1% in Puglia). Conclusions: Our results are in contrast with the randomized controlled trials showing equivalence or even the superiority of TAVI vs. SAVR, but in agreement with other registry studies based on real-world data. With respect to the randomized controlled trials, the main difference is a better outcome in SAVR. Caution should be applied in addressing patients < 80 years with TAVI unless SAVR is contraindicated.