Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life-threatening disease with risk of recurrence. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is effective to prevent thromboembolic recurrence. We aimed to investigate the quality of OAC of VTE patients in regular medical care (RMC) compared to a telemedicine-based coagulation service (CS). The thrombEVAL study (NCT01809015) is a prospective, multi-center study to investigate OAC treatment (recruitment: January 2011–March 2013). Patients were evaluated using clinical visits, computer-assisted personal interviews, self-reported data and laboratory measurements according to standard operating procedures. Overall, 360 patients with VTE from RMC and 254 from CS were included. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) was higher in CS compared to RMC (76.9% (interquartile range [IQR] 63.2–87.1%) vs. 69.5% (52.3–85.6%), p < 0.001). Crude rate of thromboembolic events (rate ratio [RR] 11.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–465.26), p = 0.0015), clinically relevant bleeding (RR 6.80 (2.52–25.76), p < 0.001), hospitalizations (RR 2.54 (1.94–3.39), p < 0.001) and mortality under OAC (RR 5.89 (2.40–18.75), p < 0.001) were consistently higher in RMC compared with CS. Patients in RMC had higher risk for primary outcome (clinically relevant bleedings, thromboembolic events and mortality, hazard ratio [HR] 5.39 (95%CI 2.81–10.33), p < 0.0001), mortality (HR 5.54 (2.22–13.84), p = 0.00025), thromboembolic events (HR 6.41 (1.51–27.24), p = 0.012), clinically relevant bleeding (HR 5.31 (1.89–14.89), p = 0.0015) and hospitalization (HR 1.84 (1.34–2.55), p = 0.0002). Benefits of CS care were still observed after adjusting for comorbidities and TTR. In conclusion, anticoagulation quality and outcome of VTE patients undergoing VKA treatment was significantly better in CS than in RMC. Patients treated in CS had lower rates of adverse events, hospitalizations and lower mortality. CS was prognostically relevant, beyond providing advantages of improved international ratio (INR) monitoring.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a viable treatment option for high-risk patients with symptomatic, senile degenerative aortic stenosis. Since the first TAVI in 2002, the technology has evolved tremendously. With the downsizing of the device delivery catheter profile, vascular access site complications have decreased significantly. Current access routes are transfemoral, subclavian, transapical and transaortic, with most centres preferring a ‘transfemoral-first’ strategy. Other significant complications of TAVI are cerebrovascular events and conduction disturbances with the need for pacemaker implantation. The current TAVI devices with the largest number of implantations and the best evidence are the Medtronic CoreValve™ and the Edwards SAPIEN XT™. Both devices are already in their third generation. Navigation technology, such as the HeartNavigator, has been developed to facilitate the preparation of the procedure and the actual device implantation. The use of hybrid catheterisation labs for performing TAVI is becoming the standard of care due to the significant advantages with regard to safety and hygiene.