Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘acc’

Early TAVR trial : Too early to call

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 18, 2025|

We know TAVI is in the striking distance , to literally take over most aortic valve interventions. From a humble beginning from very high surgical risk with prohibitive comorbidity, now it has almost touched the totally asymptomatic, relatively morbid-free patients. Thanks to the hardware, expertise, and motivation from multiple forces.

While the numbers increase, still the debate between SAVR and TAVR is riddled with speculation, skepticism, and absolute confidence. (Reason: TAVI is a passively fixed valve in a blind procedure at a self-selected annular plane, with no option to remove the crushed native leaflet debris and the resultant complications. Lastly, TAVI’s lifespan* is currently less than half of a mechanical valve. *Expected to improve with polymer valves)

The latest trial to join the litereture is EARLY TAVR in October 2024

Here is a brief, personal comment about the paper for non-academic consumption. Look carefully at the 15th second of the video. Pause it, look at the number over there on the bar of unplanned hospitalisation.

It is a staggering 41.7% in clinical surveillance group, twice more than TAVI group, pathologically tilting the conclusion of the study.

Video source and courtesy https://youtu.be/3wwQEEG4aWg

By the way, what is that unplanned hospital admission? Who is planning that admission in the asymptomatic control group? If 41% of people in the clinical surveillance group needed hospital admission, what does it mean? Does that mean clinical surveillance was so poor that they were rushed to the hospital despite being asymptomatic and stable in the surveillance period?

Why should totally asymptomatic patients get admitted in the control arm, in such huge numbers? You can presume what could be the reason. My guess is too sinister.

Another issue plaguing the RCTs for decades, is continuing even in 2025. That is putting together death, stroke, and unplanned hospital admission as a combined endpoint in the same basket. This is the familiar old cheat story i.e., used to intentionally torture the truth.

Final message

Any student with basic sense of statisitcs can interpret the result of this landmark trial from NEJM correctly. The question we need to ask is, what are the triggers for those unplanned hospital admissions?

Further, it is good for NEJM (and the medical community) not to accept any papers, if the studys’ endpoints are not appropriate or defined with the intention to manipulate, which happens in many sponsored trials.

Read Full Post »

Rosuvastatin or Atorvastatin , Which is good and safe ?

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 10, 2023|

Statins belong to a group of drugs, stolen and reengineered from the blueprint of natural Chinese red yeast rice (Monocoline K) in the late 1980s. The rest is the remarkable history in the pharma industry.

Statins directly interrupt the cholesterol synthesis by blocking HMG-CoA within the hepatocytes. It significantly lowers the LDL, fights human vascular atherosclerosis. It makes the plaque either regress, prevent progress, make it harder and in the process make them less vulnerable . There are innumerable studies that document the evidence. Statin has become a must-prescribe drug in any one with clinically established CAD or even in concealed CAD. Guidelines are available to prescribe statins various intensity, depending on the risk profile.

Which statin ?

There has been a long list of statins. Many of them have retired from the ring .Currently, the fight is between Atorvastatin, a Rosuvastatin. Like Pepsi vs. Coke.

Note the graphic ,A meteoric rise of one drug since 2005 . (Can you guess the reason ?)

ATRORVA or ROSUVA Which one should I choose ?

There is very little “one to one” comparison study between Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin .The gap in the pros and cons are narrow. Following points are observed, without much dispute.

1.Rosuvaststin is more powerful.

2.Plaque stabilisation effect is not different((Satrun, study NEJM 2011 based on IVUS)

3.New onset diabetic risk is more likely with Rosuvastatin

4.Worsening of cataract is also more with Rosuvastatin

5.Atrovastatin has some additional benefits in lowering triglycerides. (Bakker-Arkema RG, JAMA. 1996)

No one is dare enough to give strong verdict . Surprised to find one this month. BMJ has come out with a possible answer. It is called LODESTAR trial (Ref 1)

Mechanism of new onset diabetes with statins (REF 3)

It can be 7% with Rosuvastatin (less with Atorvastatin). We think, statins act primarily within the hepatocytes where cholesterol synthesis takes place, but they also have an eye on the pancreatic β-cells as well. It down-regulates GLUT-4 in adipocytes, and results in compromised insulin signalling. Furthermore, statins’ impact on epigenetics may also contribute to statin-induced T2DM via differential expression of microRNAs.

Mechanism of cataract with statins (Ref 2)

The cells lining that line the lens are dynamic and require cholesterol on a day-to-day basis. Statins inhibit proper epithelial cell development within the crystalline lens, where cholesterol biosynthesis is critical to maintain transparency and structure of the lens.

Final message

So, is it Atorvastatin or Rosuvastatin? It is left to you.

Mind you, “no statin at all” is the best option if circumstances and risk profile allows. Statins are never considered life-saving staple drugs in our fight with CAD and atherosclerosis. We, along with our scientists might may make you feel like that. Lipids can be controlled within desirable means exclusively with diet and exercise in most of the population* .

(*Forget about statins in the last 5000 years of known human existence, so many great people have lived a long and successful life in this world, without even knowing there is an organ called the heart that is responsible for the circulatory system)

Reference

1.Lee YJ, Hong SJ, Kang WC, Hong BK, Lee JY, Lee JB, Cho HJ, Yoon J, Lee SJ, Ahn CM, Kim JS, Kim BK, Ko YG, Choi D, Jang Y, Hong MK; LODESTAR investigators. Rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the randomised LODESTAR trial. BMJ. 2023 Oct 18;383:e075837. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-075837. PMID: 37852649; PMCID: PMC10583134.

2.Leuschen J, et al Association of statin use with cataracts: a propensity score-matched analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Nov;131(11):1427-34.)

3.Carmena R, Betteridge DJ. Diabetogenic Action of Statins: Mechanisms. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2019 Apr 30;21(6):23. doi: 10.1007/s11883-019-0780-z. PMID: 31037345.

Read Full Post »

What is the simple approach to bifurcation PCI ?

Posted in Cardiology -Interventional -PCI, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 6, 2008| Leave a Comment »

There are numerous complex grading for bifurcation lesions available.

The one proposed by Medina is simple and most useful.

In this grading three segments

  • Proximal main vessel
  • Distal main vessel
  • Branch vessel

Are given a code 0, and 1 if  lesion is present or absent .

This grading gives simple and fast method to label a bifurcatiuon lesion and to asssess the response to PCI. The only issue here is the individual  lesions are not graded , for example branch vessel ostium just involved about 20 % is not addressed . Further TIMI flow in these vessels may also be incorporated

How medina grading can be used to assess effectiveness of

angioplasty  ?

A patient with 1.1.1  after the treatment should revert back to 0.0.0.  if converted into 0.0.(.5) may indicate a residual side branch lesion  .5 shall indicate 50% residual lesion, .3 , 30% etc

 

What is the best management strategy for bifurcation lesions?

The topic has been discussed extensively for over a decade in various forums.

Though the lesions and intervention techniques  appear complex the basic concept is simple.

Following is the 8 point algorithm

1. Assess the bifurcation lesion accurately.

2. Apply the general rule and ask the first question whether PCI is neccessary at all ? if decided for PCI

3. Stent the main vessel.Protect the side branch.  

4. Dilate the side branch with a balloon.(KIss or through the struts) 

5. Very rarely,  if the side vessel is more significant and large  stent it and balloon the main vessel.

6. Use drug eluting stents with caution .

7. Resist the temptation of using two stents unless the situation demands and is absolutely required.

8. Never attempt to do bifurcation angioplasty during ACS as apart of primary angioplasty.( Unless you’re extremely competent, even then aim of primary PCI is to salvage myocarium quickly , not to provide TIMI 3 flow in non IRA vessel.)

Dr.S.Venkatesan.Madras medical college.Chennai.

Read Full Post »

Is there a time window for intervention in unstable angina /NSTEMI ?

Posted in Cardiology-Coronary artery disese, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2008| Leave a Comment »

                                   ACS   is the  most common cardiac emergency .  Management of STEMI is relatively straight forward.  The  only decision that to be taken is the  modality of reperfusion. (Primary PCI   or thrombolysis.) There is no need to risk stratify  STEMI on arrival. All STEMI patients are considered high risk on admission. Whereas  NSTEMI consists of  a heterogeneous  population. They need to be   triaged into low intermediate  or high risk categorizes on arrival.There is two management  approaches for unstable angina .All high risk UA should enter early invasive strategy . And low risk and intermediate risk group will get early conservative management. 

                                       The principle of management of  UA differ from STEMI in a fundamental way , as there is no issue of myocardial salvage in UA .The primary aim is to provide relief from pain and prevent an MI. So in the strict sense there is no time window in unstable angina /NSTEMI.

 

                                       But it is generally considered 48 hours is the time limit for an early invasive approach.If the patient has crossed this time there is apparently no great difference in outcome for conservative and invasive approach. 

Read Full Post »