Association between Androgenic Hormone Levels and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Androgens have been shown to have diverse effects on the cardiovascular system. The aim of this study was to compare androgenic hormone levels in patients with different left ventricular ejection fractions (EF). METHODS: The study population consisted of 515 consecutive men who were referred for angiographic studies and whose results of echocardiography and coronary angiography were available. The patients were classified into four groups: EF < 35%, EF = 35-45%, EF = 45-54%, and EF ≥ 55% to evaluate the trends of baseline characteristics and serum androgens, including free testosterone (fT), total testosterone (tT), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS). To better elucidate the difference in the patients with severe heart failure, the patients were divided into two groups according to their EF level, and comparisons were repeated between those with EF < 35% and the ones with EF ≥ 35%. RESULTS: There were statistically significant trends in some characteristics in the patients with different levels of EF. The subjects with higher EF levels were less likely to have diabetes (p value < 0.001), coronary artery lesion (p value < 0.001), or high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) (p value < 0.001). As regards the patients with severe heart failure, our regression analysis revealed that the fT level was significantly lower in those with EF < 35% than in the ones with EF ≥ 35% (5.82 ± 2.73 pg/mL vs. 6.88 ± 3.34 pg/mL, p value < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A significant association was found between the level of fT and EF < 35%. There is a need for further controlled prospective studies to delineate any possible causal relationship accurately.

In-hospital and mid-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with the use of sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents improved the outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), however, there may be significant differences in their safety and efficacy. AIM: To compare the in-hospital and mid-term clinical outcomes of stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for the treatment of coronary artery lesions in our routine practice. METHODS: This study was performed on 1311 consecutive patients treated exclusively either with SES or PES in our hospital between March 2003 and March 2007. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) within the preceding 48 hours were excluded. The data were recorded in our computerised database, and analysed with appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: The frequency of angulated segments and proximal segment tortuosity was higher in the PES group (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), while ostial and left anterior descending artery lesions were more frequently treated with SES (p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively). The rate of in-hospital non-Q wave MI was higher in the SES vs. PES group (2.2 vs. 0.7%, p = 0.039). In multivariate analysis, the relationship between type of stent and in-hospital non-Q-wave MI became less significant (p = 0.083). During follow-up, 5 patients in the SES vs. 3 in the PES group died (0.7% in each group, p = 0.749). The frequency of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) in the SES vs. PES group was similar (5.5 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.138, and 2.9 vs. 1.6%, p = 0.213, respectively). In multivariate analysis, reference vessel diameter was an independent predictor of both TVR (HR = 0.170, 95% CL 0.034-0.837, p = 0.029) and MACE (HR = 0.333, 95% CL 0.120-0.925, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: During mid-term follow-up, sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents demonstrate similar clinical outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in our routine clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to characterize patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus those treated with bare metal stents (BMS) and to investigate their clinical outcomes in our routine clinical practice. METHODS: We studied a consecutive series of 1796 patients, selected from a computerized registry, who underwent stenting for coronary artery lesions either with BMS (1568 patients, 87.3%) or DES (228 patients, 12.7%) between April 2003 and March 2005. In this study, those with myocardial infarction (MI) within 48 hours preceding the procedure were excluded. Patients with more than one lesion were included only if the lesions were entirely treated either with BMS or DES. RESULTS: Type B2/C, left anterior descending artery, and diffuse lesions were more frequent in the group treated with DES (p<0.001). There was no difference between these groups in terms of acute success rates, although periprocedural non-Q wave MI occurred more frequently in the DES group (2.7% vs. 0.9%, p=0.03). At 18-month follow up, a univariate analysis showed no difference in the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with DES (2.2%) vs. BMS (4.2%). However, a multivariate analysis showed DES to independently decrease the risk of this cumulative outcome (hazard ratio=0.36, 95% CI=0.13-0.95) and the single endpoint of target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio=0.25, 95% CI=0.07-0.89). At 12 months, the survival rate in the DES group was higher than that in the BMS group as a trend (p=0.06). At 18 months, the occurrence of late thrombotic events in the DES group reduced this gap (95.7% vs. 94.7%, p=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Use of drug-eluting stents in our routine practice was effective in reducing the rate of major adverse cardiac events, when compared with patients treated with bare metal stents at mid-term follow up. For the evaluation of effects of drug-eluting stents in long-term follow up, further studies of larger populations are required.

Transcatheter closure of a coronary fistula with an Amplatzer vascular plug: should a retrograde approach be standard?

Coronary artery fistulae are rare disorders. Only 2 reports in the medical literature discuss the use of vascular plugs to occlude coronary fistulae, and the same device-the Amplatzer Vascular Plug-was deployed via different techniques to treat those patients. The safety, the feasibility, and the standard approach to deployment have yet to be established. Herein, we describe the case of a 15-year-old boy who presented with a continuous murmur at the left sternal border. The patient was diagnosed with a large coronary fistula that originated from the right coronary artery and emptied into the right atrium. He underwent transcatheter closure of the fistula. We placed a 14-mm Amplatzer Vascular Plug into the narrowest part of the fistula, which resulted in complete occlusion and an excellent outcome. Our retrograde approach is simple and obviates the need to establish arteriovenous loops or to insert additional devices, such as coils. In this report, we compare our results with those of the 2 previous reports. To our knowledge, this is only the 2nd report that describes the closure of a coronary fistula in an adolescent patient by use of an Amplatzer Vascular Plug.

In-hospital and late clinical outcomes of direct stenting strategy versus stenting after predilatation for the treatment of coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: Direct stenting without balloon dilatation may reduce procedural costs and duration, and hypothetically, the restenosis rate. This study was designed to compare the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of direct stenting (DS) versus stenting after predilatation (PS) in our routine clinical practice. METHODS: One thousand six hundred and three patients treated with stenting for single coronary lesions were enrolled into a prospective registry. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) within the preceding 48 hours, highly calcified lesions, total occlusions, or lesion in a saphenous graft were excluded. The baseline, angiographic, and procedural data, in-hospital outcomes and follow-up data were recorded in our database, and analyzed with appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty-seven patients (53.5%) were treated with DS, whereas 746 of them (46.5%) underwent PS. In the DS group, lesions were shorter in length, larger in diameter, and had lower pre-procedural diameter stenosis. Type C and diffuse lesions and drug-eluting stents were less frequent (p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, dissection and non-Q-wave MI occurred less frequently in this group (0.2% and 0.6% vs 3.9% and 2.1%, p < 0.001 and p 7 = 0.01, respectively). However, the cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE) did not differ significantly (4.9% vs 4.6%, p = 0.79). In multivariate analysis, direct stenting reduced the risk of dissection (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.33), but, neither the cumulative endpoint of MACE (OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.58-2.11, p = 0.7) nor its constructing components were different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Direct stenting in real world has at least similar long-term outcomes with patients treated with stenting after predilatation and is associated with lower dissection rate.

Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention on proximal versus non-proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, proximal left circumflex, and proximal right coronary artery: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that lesions in proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) may develop more restenosis after balloon angioplasty than lesions in other coronary segments. However, stenting seems to have reduced this gap. In this study, we compared outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on proximal LAD versus proximal left circumflex (LCX) or right coronary artery (RCA) and proximal versus non-proximal LAD. METHODS: From 1737 patients undergoing PCI between March 2004 and 2005, those with cardiogenic shock, primary PCI, total occlusions, and multivessel or multi-lesion PCI were excluded. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared in 408 patients with PCI on proximal LAD versus 133 patients with PCI on proximal LCX/RCA (study I) and 244 patients with PCI on non-proximal LAD (study II). From our study populations, 449 patients in study I and 549 patients in study II participated in complete follow-up programs, and long-term PCI outcomes were compared within these groups. The statistical methods included Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, student's t-test, stratification methods, multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: In the proximal LAD vs. proximal LCX/RCA groups, smoking and multivessel disease were less frequent and drug-eluting stents were used more often (p = 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Patients had longer and smaller-diameter stents (p = 0.009, p < 0.001, respectively). In the proximal vs. non-proximal LAD groups, multivessel disease was less frequent (p = 0.05). Patients had larger reference vessel diameters (p < 0.001) and were more frequently treated with stents, especially direct stenting technique (p < 0.001). Angiographic success rate was higher in the proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD groups (p = 0.004 and p = 0.05, respectively). In long-term follow-up, major adverse cardiac events showed no difference. After statistical adjustment for significant demographic, angiographic or procedural characteristics, long-term PCI outcomes were still similar in the proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD groups. CONCLUSION: Despite the known worse prognosis of proximal LAD lesions, in the era of stenting, our long-term outcomes were similar in patients with PCI on proximal LAD versus proximal LCX/RCA and non-proximal LAD. Furthermore, we had better angiographic success rates in patients with PCI on proximal LAD.

Premedication for coronary angiography: effects on anxiety and hemodynamic status.

AIM: This study was designed to compare the outcomes of two current methods of premedication, for coronary angiography with placebo, on the level of anxiety and hemodynamic status. METHODS AND RESULTS: In all, 151 patients referring for coronary angiography were randomized into three groups with equal populations. The first group (group M) received 0.02 mg/kg intravenous midazolam; the second (group DP7rpar; received intramuscular injection of 5mg diazepam + 25 mg promethazine; and the third (group P) received 2cc of intravenous normal saline solution. Vital signs, blood pressure, and peripheral O2 saturation were recorded in specifically-designed questionnaires. The level of anxiety before and after angiography was documented according to the Visual Analog Scale. Patients in the group M accidentally had higher pre-procedural anxiety level (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in pulse rate, respiratory rate, and mean blood pressure (BP) between these groups prior to angiography. In the group M, diastolic BP decreased more significantly than the other 2 groups during angiography (p < 0.05). Although number of punctures, pain at catheterization site, dose of lidocaine, level of consciousness, and patient satisfaction did not show a significant difference between the three groups; midazolam induced higher level of amnesia than the other 2 groups and the physicians were more satisfied with it only compared with diazepam + promethazine (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Because of the importance of hemodynamic stability and comfort during angiography, non-pharmacologic approaches are preferred. In case of severity and persistence of autonomic system stimulation, the least effective dose of midazolam for a short period of time may be used.

Association between hepatitis B surface antibody seropositivity and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Specific infectious agents have been found to be related to the pathogenesis of coronary atherosclerosis. AIMS: We assessed the possible association between angiographically proven coronary artery disease (CAD) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBS Ab) seropositivity in a population with relatively high prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. SETTING AND DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 830 consecutive subjects undergoing coronary angiography, including angiographic results reported by two cardiologists for inter-observer reliability and assessment of HBS Ab status determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, independent two-sample t test and the Pearson's Correlation Coefficient test were used, as required. Statistics were performed using SPSS software version 13 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine (30%) subjects had normal angiogram or minimal CAD, and 581 (70%) had significant CAD in at least one major coronary artery. In patients with CAD and in patients without angiographic evidence of significant atherosclerosis, 28.7% and 28.9% respectively were positive for HBV (P=0.954). Mean C-reactive protein levels in subjects with positive and negative HBS Ab were 10.77+/-8.37 mg/L versus 10.33+/-7.64 mg/L respectively (P=0.465). However, C-reactive protein levels in CAD group were significantly higher (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested hepatitis B surface antibody seropositivity has no relationship with coronary artery disease. Moreover, no significant linear correlation exists between HBS Ab and C-reactive protein levels. However, as previously shown, C-reactive protein level in patients with coronary artery disease is significantly higher than in patients with normal coronary arteries.