Ocular Pulse Amplitude and Doppler Waveform Analysis in Glaucoma Patients

PURPOSE: To determine the correlation between ocular blood flow velocities and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) in glaucoma patients using colour Doppler imaging (CDI) waveform analysis. METHOD: A prospective, observer-masked, case-control study was performed. OPA and blood flow variables from central retinal artery and vein (CRA, CRV), nasal and temporal short posterior ciliary arteries (NPCA, TPCA) and ophthalmic artery (OA) were obtained through dynamic contour tonometry and CDI, respectively. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore the correlations between OPA and retrobulbar CDI waveform and systemic cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, blood pressure amplitude, mean ocular perfusion pressure and peripheral pulse). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-two patients were included [healthy controls: 55; primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG): 74; normal-tension glaucoma (NTG): 63]. OPA was statistically different between groups (Healthy: 3.17 ± 1.2 mmHg; NTG: 2.58 ± 1.2 mmHg; POAG: 2.60 ± 1.1 mmHg; p < 0.01), but not between the glaucoma groups (p = 0.60). Multiple regression models to explain OPA variance were made for each cohort (healthy: p < 0.001, r = 0.605; NTG: p = 0.003, r = 0.372; POAG: p < 0.001, r = 0.412). OPA was independently associated with retrobulbar CDI parameters in the healthy subjects and POAG patients (healthy CRV resistance index: β = 3.37, CI: 0.16-6.59; healthy NPCA mean systolic/diastolic velocity ratio: β = 1.34, CI: 0.52-2.15; POAG TPCA mean systolic velocity: β = 0.14, CI 0.05-0.23). OPA in the NTG group was associated with diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate (β = -0.04, CI: -0.06 to -0.01; β = -0.04, CI: -0.06 to -0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular-related models provide a better explanation to OPA variance in healthy individuals than in glaucoma patients. The variables that influence OPA seem to be different in healthy, POAG and NTG patients.

Percutaneous Treatment of Mitral Valve Regurgitation: Initial Experience with the MitraClip Device

INTRODUCTION: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most common valvular disease and has recently become the target of a number of percutaneous approaches. The MitraClip is virtually the only device for which there is considerable experience, with more than 20,000 procedures performed worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe our initial experience of the percutaneous treatment of MR with the MitraClip device. METHODS: We describe the first six MitraClip cases performed in this institution (mean age 58.5 ± 13.1 years), with functional MR grade 4+ and New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure class III or IV (n=3), with a mean follow-up of 290 ± 145 days. RESULTS: Procedural success (MR ≤ 2+) was 100%. Total procedure time was 115.8 ± 23.7 min, with no in-hospital adverse events and discharge between the fourth and eighth day, and consistent improvement in the six-minute walk test (329.8 ± 98.42 vs. 385.33 ± 106.95 m) and in NYHA class (three patients improved by two NYHA classes). During follow-up there were two deaths, in two of the four patients who had been initially considered for heart transplantation. CONCLUSION: In patients with functional MR the MitraClip procedure is safe, with both a high implantation and immediate in-hospital success rate. A longer follow-up suggests that the clinical benefit decreases or disappears completely in patients with more advanced heart disease, namely those denied transplantation or on the heart transplant waiting list.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.