Aortic Stenosis in Dialysis Patients.

Aortic valve stenosis occurs 10-20 years earlier in patients on dialysis compared with the general population. This is likely related to the exposure of the valve to a milieu that predisposes to calcification as well as increased shear stress across the valve. Objective assessment of stenosis severity is largely made using echocardiography though accurate interpretation requires an understanding of the potential pitfalls of the technique and the influence of cardiac output upon the gradient measured across the valve. Timing of valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis is predominantly guided by exercise-induced symptoms (breathlessness, chest pain and [pre] syncope), which are often difficult to assess in the dialysis population who may have limited exercise capacity and symptoms due to renal failure and other comorbidities. Finally, treatment of aortic stenosis remains a constantly evolving area with advances in both conventional surgery and percutaneous techniques.

Resolving the paradox of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing multi-vessel angioplasty and culprit only angioplasty at the time of STEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction commonly have multi-vessel coronary artery disease. After the culprit artery is treated, the optimal treatment strategy for the residual disease is not yet defined. Large observational studies suggest that treatment of residual disease should be deferred but smaller randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest multi-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PPCI) at the time of STEMI is safe. We examine if allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the conflicting results between observational studies and RCTs and aim to resolve the paradox between the two. METHODS: A meta-analysis of registries comparing culprit-only PPCI to MV-PPCI was performed. We then determined if high-risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI. A meta-regression was performed to determine if any allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the difference in outcomes between therapies. RESULTS: 47,717 patients (19 studies) were eligible. MV-PPCI had higher mortality than culprit-only PPCI (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.24, p=0.03). However, higher risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.78, p=0.0005). When this was accounted for, there was no difference in mortality between culprit-only PPCI and MV-PPCI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, p=0.94). DISCUSSION: Clinicians preferentially allocate higher-risk patients to MV-PPCI at the time of STEMI, resulting in observational studies reporting higher mortality with this strategy. When this is accounted for, these large observational studies in 'real world' patients support the conclusion of the smaller RCTs in the field: MV-PPCI has equivalent mortality to a culprit-only approach.

Association of cholesterol levels, hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitor treatment, and progression of aortic stenosis in the community.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to analyze the association among cholesterol levels, lipid-lowering treatment, and progression of aortic stenosis (AS) in the community. BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease for which there is no known medical treatment to prevent or slow progression. Despite plausible pathologic mechanisms linking hypercholesterolemia to AS progression, clinical studies have been inconsistent and affected by referral bias, and the role of lipid-lowering therapy is uncertain. METHODS: We determined the association between blood cholesterol levels and progression of native AS (assessed by Doppler echocardiography at baseline and at least six months later; mean interval, 3.7 +/- 2.3 years) in a community-based study of 156 patients (age 77 +/- 12 years; 90 men). Thirty-eight patients received statin treatment during follow-up. RESULTS: In untreated subjects, mean gradient increased from 22 +/- 12 mm Hg to 39 +/- 19 mm Hg, and aortic valve area (AVA) decreased from 1.20 +/- 0.35 cm(2) to 0.91 +/- 0.33 cm(2) (both p < 0.001). The annualized change in AVA was -0.09 +/- 0.17 cm(2)/year (-7% +/- 13%/year). Neither total cholesterol (r = -0.01, p = 0.92) nor low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.01; p = 0.88) showed a significant correlation to AS progression. Nevertheless, progression of AS was slower in patients receiving statins compared with untreated patients (decrease in AVA -3 +/- 10% vs. -7 +/- 13% per year, respectively; p = 0.04), even when adjusted for age, gender, cholesterol, and baseline valve area (p = 0.04). The association of statin treatment with slower progression was confirmed when analysis was restricted to patients coming for a systematic follow-up (p=0.02). The odds ratio of AS progression with statin treatment was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: In the community, progression of AS shows no trend of association with cholesterol levels. Statin treatment, however, is associated with slower progression, suggesting that the effects of statin treatment on progression of AS should be pursued with appropriate clinical trials.

A new method of applying randomised control study data to the individual patient: A novel quantitative patient-centred approach to interpreting composite end points.

BACKGROUND: Modern randomised controlled trials typically use composite endpoints. This is only valid if each endpoint is equally important to patients but few trials document patient preference and seek the relative importance of components of combined endpoints. If patients weigh endpoints differentially, our interpretation of trial data needs to be refined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We derive a quantitative, structured tool to determine the relative importance of each endpoint to patients. We then apply this tool to data comparing angioplasty with drug-eluting stents to bypass surgery. The survey was administered to patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation. A meta-analysis comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to percutaneous coronary interventuin (PCI) was then performed using (a) standard MACE and (b) patient-centred MACE. Patients considered stroke worse than death (stroke 102.3 ± 19.6%, p < 0.01), and MI and repeat revascularisation less severe than death (61.9 ± 26.8% and 41.9 ± 25.4% respectively p < 0.01 for both). 7 RCTs (5251 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis demonstrated that standard MACE occurs more frequently with PCI than surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.87; p = 0.007). Re-analysis using patient-centred MACE found no significant difference between PCI and CABG (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.53; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients do not consider the constituent endpoints of MACE equal. We derive a novel patient-centred metric that recognises and quantifies the differences attributed to each endpoint. When patient preference data are applied to contemporary trial results, there is no significant difference between PCI and CABG. Responses from individual patients in clinic could be used to give individual patients a recommendation that is truly personalised.

Pre-angioplasty instantaneous wave-free ratio pullback provides virtual intervention and predicts hemodynamic outcome for serial lesions and diffuse coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform hemodynamic mapping of the entire vessel using motorized pullback of a pressure guidewire with continuous instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measurement. BACKGROUND: Serial stenoses or diffuse vessel narrowing hamper pressure wire-guided management of coronary stenoses. Characterization of functional relevance of individual stenoses or narrowed segments constitutes an unmet need in ischemia-driven percutaneous revascularization. METHODS: The study was performed in 32 coronary arteries with tandem and/or diffusely diseased vessels. An automated iFR physiological map, integrating pullback speed and physiological information, was built using dedicated software to calculate physiological stenosis severity, length, and intensity (ΔiFR/mm). This map was used to predict the best-case post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) iFR (iFRexp) according to the stented location, and this was compared with the observed iFR post-PCI (iFRobs). RESULTS: After successful PCI, the mean difference between iFRexp and iFRobs was small (mean difference: 0.016 ± 0.004) with a strong relationship between ΔiFRexp and ΔiFRobs (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). By identifying differing iFR intensities, it was possible to identify functional stenosis length and quantify the contribution of each individual stenosis or narrowed segment to overall vessel stenotic burden. Physiological lesion length was shorter than anatomic length (12.6 ± 1.5 vs. 23.3 ± 1.3, p < 0.001), and targeting regions with the highest iFR intensity predicted significant improvement post-PCI (r = 0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: iFR measurements during continuous resting pressure wire pullback provide a physiological map of the entire coronary vessel. Before a PCI, the iFR pullback can predict the hemodynamic consequences of stenting specific stenoses and thereby may facilitate the intervention and stenting strategy.

Improvement in coronary haemodynamics after percutaneous coronary intervention: assessment using instantaneous wave-free ratio.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) can detect improvement in stenosis significance after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and compare this with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and whole cycle Pd/Pa. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was undertaken in elective patients scheduled for PCI with FFR ≤ 0.80. Intracoronary pressures were measured at rest and during adenosine-mediated vasodilatation, before and after PCI. iFR, Pd/Pa and FFR values were calculated using the validated fully automated algorithms. SETTING: Coronary catheter laboratories in two UK centres and one in the USA. PATIENTS: 120 coronary stenoses in 112 patients were assessed. The mean age was 63 ± 10 years, while 84% were male; 39% smokers; 33% with diabetes. Mean diameter stenosis was 68 ± 16% by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: Pre-PCI, mean FFR was 0.66 ± 0.14, mean iFR was 0.75 ± 0.21 and mean Pd/Pa 0.83 ± 0.16. PCI increased all indices significantly (FFR 0.89 ± 0.07, p<0.001; iFR 0.94 ± 0.05, p<0.001; Pd/Pa 0.96 ± 0.04, p<0.001). The change in iFR after intervention (0.20 ± 0.21) was similar to ΔFFR 0.22 ± 0.15 (p=0.25). ΔFFR and ΔiFR were significantly larger than resting ΔPd/Pa (0.13 ± 0.16, both p<0.001). Similar incremental changes occurred in patients with a higher prevalence of risk factors for microcirculatory disease such as diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: iFR and FFR detect the changes in coronary haemodynamics elicited by PCI. FFR and iFR have a significantly larger dynamic range than resting Pd/Pa. iFR might be used to objectively document improvement in coronary haemodynamics following PCI in a similar manner to FFR.