Rosuvastatin slows the development of diastolic dysfunction in calcific aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aims were to test the effect of rosuvastatin on the progression of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), and to evaluate the use of beta-natriuretic-peptide (BNP) as a marker of diastolic dysfunction in this condition. METHODS: Sixty-one hypercholesterolemic, consecutive new referrals with moderate AS were administered rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day for 18 months, while a further 60 subjects with normal cholesterol levels remained untreated. The LV diastolic function was determined using conventional Doppler echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging (TDI); BNP plasma levels were monitored when subjects entered the study and then assessed prospectively at six-month intervals until the study end. RESULTS: After an 18-month (mean 73 +/- 24 weeks) period of treatment with rosuvastatin (Tx group), patients showed a significantly better diastolic function than untreated subjects (uTx group), as indicated by an isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT) (Tx 102.0 +/- 42.8 versus 97.2 +/- 19.1; p < 0.001; uTx 99.7 +/- 21.7 versus 95.2 +/- 21.8 ms; p = 0.032), E/A ratio (Tx 1.0 +/- 0.6 versus 0.9 +/- 0.3, p = 0.52; uTx 1.2 +/- 0.40 versus 0.9 +/- 0.30 versus, p = 0.006), and E/E' ratio (Tx 11.4 +/- 1.5 versus 11.4 +/- 1.8, p = 0.19; uTx 15.4 +/- 1.2 versus 12.3 +/- 1.5, p < 0.001). Similarly, at study end, plasma levels of BNP were significantly lower in the Tx group than in the uTx group [median (1st-3rd quartiles): 37.0 pg/ml (20.1-65.2 pg/ml) versus 57.1 pg/ml (46.9-98.2 pg/ml); p = 0.017]. CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective follow up study of asymptomatic patients showed that rosuvastatin treatment delays the progression of diastolic dysfunction in moderate AS when assessed using hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters or by the release of plasma physiological markers. Hence, the benefits of statin treatment in AS, which are known to affect the valve endothelium, also extend to changes affecting myocardial function itself.

What Leads to a Patient Refusal for Ambulatory Surgery? A Logistic Regression Prediction Model Based on a 5-year Retrospective Analysis of Patients with Abdominal Wall Hernia.

INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory surgery has proven benefits in patient wellbeing and cost reduction in healthcare systems. However, some patients referred for ambulatory surgery are refused and directed instead towards inpatient care, which generates several drawbacks. The reasons for this refusal have not been yet studied. The aim of this study is to identify, retrospectively, significant variables associated with patient refusal for ambulatory surgery and develop a mathematical tool able to predict with strong accuracy those who will be rejected. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 5-year period (2014 - 2018), all patients that underwent abdominal hernia repair in our hospital in an inpatient setting, and that had been previously refused for ambulatory surgery, were analysed for a total of 94 variables. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to identify risk factors associated with refusal using data from 136 patients (65 refused vs 71 accepted). A prediction index for refusal in ambulatory surgery - IRAS - was derived and tested (n = 62 patients). RESULTS: The risk index included five significant risk factors: type 2 diabetes mellitus [OR 14.669 (2.982; 72.154)], physical status [OR 49.155 (15.532; 155.555)], prior malignancy [OR 14.518 (2.653; 79.441)], prior abdominal surgery [OR 3.455 (1.006; 11.866)] and usage of antiplatelet agents [OR 25.600 (4.309; 152.066)]. All risk factors were associated with a high risk of refusal (OR between 3.455 for history of prior abdominal surgery and 49.155 according to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification). Defining five points as the maximum IRAS score that predicts suitability for ambulatory surgery resulted in a positive predictive value of 93.55% and negative predictive value of 87.10%. DISCUSSION: Significant patient variables for refusal of an ambulatory procedure were determined and an easy to use risk index - IRAS - was built that is able to predict with good accuracy which patients will be refused. CONCLUSION: IRAS is a useful tool that can contribute to reduce time to surgery and improve patients' quality of life.

Introdução: A cirurgia de ambulatório tem benefícios comprovados no bem-estar dos doentes e na redução de custos dos sistemas de saúde. Porém, alguns doentes referenciados para cirurgia de ambulatório são recusados e encaminhados para internamento. Os motivos desta recusa ainda não foram estudados. Neste trabalho identificámos, retrospectivamente, variáveis significativas na recusa dos doentes e fornecemos uma ferramenta matemática capaz de prever de forma precisa aqueles que serão rejeitados. Material e Métodos: Ao longo de cinco anos (2014 - 2018), todos os doentes submetidos a correção cirúrgica de hérnia abdominal em regime de internamento no nosso centro hospitalar previamente recusados para cirurgia de ambulatório foram analisados para um total de 94 variáveis. Um modelo de regressão logística multivariada foi desenvolvido para identificar os fatores de risco para recusa usando dados de 136 doentes (65 recusados vs 71 aceites). Um índice preditivo para recusa de cirurgia em ambulatório, IRAS, foi criado e testado (n = 62 doentes). Resultados: O IRAS incluiu cinco fatores de risco significativos: diabetes mellitus tipo 2 [OR 14,669 (2,982; 72,154)], estado físico [OR 49,155 (15,532; 155,555)], neoplasia maligna prévia [OR 14,518 (2,653; 79,441)], cirurgia abdominal prévia [OR 3,455 (1,006; 11,866)] e uso de agentes antiplaquetários [OR 25,600 (4,309; 152,066)]. Todos os fatores de risco foram associados a elevado risco de recusa (OR entre 3,455 para história de cirurgia abdominal prévia e 49,155 de acordo com a classificação do estado físico segundo a American Society of Anaesthesiologists). A definição de cinco pontos como a pontuação máxima do IRAS que prevê adequação para cirurgia de ambulatório resultou num valor preditivo positivo de 93,55% e um valor preditivo negativo de 87,10%. Discussão: Foram determinadas variáveis significativas para recusa de um doente para cirurgia de ambulatório e construído um índice de risco de fácil utilização, IRAS, capaz de predizer que doentes serão recusados com boa precisão. Conclusão: O índice IRAS é uma ferramenta útil que pode contribuir para a redução dos tempos de espera e melhorar a qualidade de vida dos doentes.

Analysis of variability and reproducibility of echocardiography measurements in valvular aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Doppler echocardiography is the most frequent method for detecting and evaluating the severity of valvular aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to assess the variability and reproducibility of echocardiographic parameters including aortic valve area (AVA), peak aortic jet velocity (V(max)), velocity ratio (V(LVOT)/V(max)), peak gradient (G(max)) and mean gradient (G(mean)) in aortic stenosis (AS) patients. METHODS: Doppler echocardiograms were obtained from 150 randomly selected patients (56.7% male; mean age 73 +/- 9 years) with asymptomatic moderate aortic valve stenosis. The echocardiographic measurements were performed by two independent level III (expert) blinded observers. To assess intra-observer variability, we evaluated parameters of AS progression at two different times (mean of two weeks after the first examination). RESULTS: For intra-observer variability (observer 1), the variation and reproducibility coefficients were, respectively, 1.88% and 0.16 m/s for V(max), 2.08% and 0.14 for V(LVOT)/V(max) 2.05% and 0.18 cm2 for AVA, 3.89% and 5.18 mmHg for G(max) and 7.87% and 6.30 mmHg for G(mean). For inter-observer variability, the variation and reproducibility coefficients were, respectively, 2.00% and 0.14 m/s for V(max), 2.91% and 0.14 for V(LVOT)/V(max), 7.67% and 0.16 cm2 for AVA, 8.53% and 7.06 mmHg for G(mean) and 3.90% and 5.58 mmHg for G(max). Both intra- and inter-observer studies showed excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for all echocardiographic parameters (ICC ranged from 0.943 to 0.990 for intra-observer variability and from 0.955 to 0.992 for interobserver variability). CONCLUSION: Doppler echocardiographic measurements of AVA, V(max), G(max) and G(mean) are highly reproducible when performed by expert observers. Of all echocardiographic parameters, V(max) and V(LVOT)/V(max) showed the best variability and reproducibility, and thus constitute reliable tools for clinical and research purposes in aortic stenosis diagnosis and follow-up.

Rosuvastatin affecting aortic valve endothelium to slow the progression of aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the effect of a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitor on the progression of moderate to severe aortic stenosis as measured by echocardiography. BACKGROUND: Recent retrospective studies support the hypothesis that statins slow the progression of aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed an open-label, prospective study evaluating 121 consecutive patients with asymptomatic moderate to severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area > or = 1.0 cm2; mean age 73.7 +/- 8.9 years; 57 men and 64 women), treated with and without rosuvastatin according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Echocardiographic, serum lipid, and inflammatory markers were measured at baseline and every 6 months for 18 months. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (50.4%) with elevated LDL (159.7 +/- 33.4 mg/dl), aortic valve velocity (3.65 +/- 0.64 m/s), and aortic valve area (1.23 +/- 0.42 cm2) received rosuvastatin (20 mg/day), and 60 (49.6%) with a normal LDL (118.6 +/- 37.4 mg/dl), aortic valve velocity (3.62 +/- 0.61 m/s), and aortic valve area (1.20 +/- 0.35 cm2) received no statin. During a mean follow-up of 73 +/- 24 weeks, the change in aortic valve area in the control group was -0.10 +/- 0.09 cm2/year versus -0.05 +/- 0.12 cm2/year in the rosuvastatin group (p = 0.041). The increase in aortic valve velocity was 0.24 +/- 0.30 m/s/year in the control group and 0.04 +/- 0.38 m/s/year in the rosuvastatin group (p = 0.007). There was significant improvement in serum lipid and echocardiographic measures of aortic stenosis in the statin group. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective treatment of aortic stenosis with rosuvastatin by targeting serum LDL slowed the hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis. This is the first prospective study that shows a positive effect of statin therapy for this disease process. (Rosuvastatin Affecting Aortic Valve Endothelium; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00114491?order = 1; NCT0014491).