Dataset Information

Usefulness of routine aortic valve calcium score measurement for risk stratification of aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease in patients scheduled cardiac multislice computed tomography.

ABSTRACT: This study sought to investigate the clinical utility of aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) determined by using cardiac multislice computed tomography (MSCT).Data of 1315 consecutive patients who underwent both conventional echocardiography and MSCT were reviewed. Degree of aortic stenosis (AS) was assessed according to mean pressure gradient (mPG) measured by echocardiography. Extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) derived by MSCT also was evaluated in 1173 patients who did not undergo prior coronary treatment. Both AVCS and coronary calcium score (CCS) were defined by Agatston units (AU) according to MSCT findings.A total of 613 of 1315 patients were defined as AVCS positive (mean, 100 AU [range, 31.0-380.0 AU]). AVCS showed significant correlations with mPG (Spearman's ρ = 0.81, p < 0.001), and CCS (ρ = 0.53, p < 0.001). Differential adequate cut-off values of AVCS were proved for predicting severe AS with mPG ≥ 40 mmHg (1596.5 AU; AUC, 0.88; sensitivity, 89.7%; specificity, 77.0%), and for predicting moderate AS with mPG ≥ 20 mmHg (886.5 AU; area under the curve [AUC], 0.91; sensitivity, 92.4%; specificity, 78.3%). Mean AVCS was higher with increased extent of CAD (none, 0 AU [range, 0-30 AU]; single vessel, 8.5 AU [range, 0-104 AU]; multivessel, 142 AU [range, 10-525 AU]; p < 0.001). The optimal cut-off value of AVCS for predicting multivessel disease was 49 AU (AUC, 0.77; sensitivity, 68.8%; specificity, 78.0%).AVCS might be a surrogate marker not only for AS grading but also for CAD progression. Therefore, routine AVCS assessment could be useful for risk stratification.

SUBMITTER: Shimizu K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5497337 | biostudies-other | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care.Data collection and analysisPrimary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table.Main resultsWe included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life.Authors' conclusionsResult findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Dataset Information

Usefulness of routine aortic valve calcium score measurement for risk stratification of aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease in patients scheduled cardiac multislice computed tomography.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets