2015 Update on Acute Adverse Reactions to Gadolinium based Contrast Agents in Cardiovascular MR. Large Multi-National and Multi-Ethnical Population Experience With 37788 Patients From the EuroCMR Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Specifically we aim to demonstrate that the results of our earlier safety data hold true in this much larger multi-national and multi-ethnical population. BACKGROUND: We sought to re-evaluate the frequency, manifestations, and severity of acute adverse reactions associated with administration of several gadolinium- based contrast agents during routine CMR on a European level. METHODS: Multi-centre, multi-national, and multi-ethnical registry with consecutive enrolment of patients in 57 European centres. RESULTS: During the current observation 37,788 doses of Gadolinium based contrast agent were administered to 37,788 patients. The mean dose was 24.7 ml (range 5-80 ml), which is equivalent to 0.123 mmol/kg (range 0.01 - 0.3 mmol/kg). Forty-five acute adverse reactions due to contrast administration occurred (0.12%). Most reactions were classified as mild (43 of 45) according to the American College of Radiology definition. The most frequent complaints following contrast administration were rashes and hives (15 of 45), followed by nausea (10 of 45) and flushes (10 of 45). The event rate ranged from 0.05% (linear non-ionic agent gadodiamide) to 0.42% (linear ionic agent gadobenate dimeglumine). Interestingly, we also found different event rates between the three main indications for CMR ranging from 0.05% (risk stratification in suspected CAD) to 0.22% (viability in known CAD). CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that the results of the earlier safety data hold true in this much larger multi-national and multi-ethnical population. Thus, the "off-label" use of Gadolinium based contrast in cardiovascular MR should be regarded as safe concerning the frequency, manifestation and severity of acute events.

Cardiovascular risk estimation and eligibility for statin therapy using different scoring systems in Europe: a population-based study in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for statin use for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are based on estimation of the 10- year CHD risk. We compared the 10-year CHD risk assessments and eligibility percentages for statin therapy using three scoring algorithms currently used in Europe. METHODS: We studied 5683 women and men, aged 35-75, without overt cardiovascular disease (CVD), in a population-based study in Switzerland. We compared the 10-year CHD risk using three scoring schemes, i.e., the Framingham risk score (FRS) from the U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), the PROCAM scoring scheme from the International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS), and the European risk SCORE for low-risk countries, without and with extrapolation to 60 years as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology guidelines (ESC). With FRS and PROCAM, high-risk was defined as a 10- year risk of fatal or non-fatal CHD>20% and a 10-year risk of fatal CVD≥5% with SCORE. We compared the proportions of high-risk participants and eligibility for statin use according to these three schemes. For each guideline, we estimated the impact of increased statin use from current partial compliance to full compliance on potential CHD deaths averted over 10 years, using a success proportion of 27% for statins. RESULTS: Participants classified at high-risk (both genders) were 5.8% according to FRS and 3.0% to the PROCAM, whereas the European risk SCORE classified 12.5% at high-risk (15.4% with extrapolation to 60 years). For the primary prevention of CHD, 18.5% of participants were eligible for statin therapy using ATP III, 16.6% using IAS, and 10.3% using ESC (13.0% with extrapolation) because ESC guidelines recommend statin therapy only in high-risk subjects. In comparison with IAS, agreement to identify eligible adults for statins was good with ATP III, but moderate with ESC. Using a population perspective, a full compliance with ATP III guidelines would reduce up to 17.9% of the 24′ 310 CHD deaths expected over 10 years in Switzerland, 17.3% with IAS and 10.8% with ESC (11.5% with extrapolation). CONCLUSIONS: Full compliance with guidelines for statin therapy would result in substantial health benefits, but proportions of high-risk adults and eligible adults for statin use varied substantially depending on the scoring systems and corresponding guidelines used for estimating CHD risk in Europe.

Pregnancy Outcome Following Maternal Exposure To Statins: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Introduction: Statin use for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in women of childbearing age is increasingly common. However, published data on pregnancy outcome after exposure to statins are scarce and conflicting. This contribution addresses the safety of exposure to statins during pregnancy.Method: In a multi-center (n = 11) observational, prospective study we compared the outcomes of 249 women exposed during the 1st trimester of pregnancy to simvastatin (n = 124), atorvastatin (n = 67), pravastatin (n = 32), rosuvastatin (n = 18), fluvastatin (n = 7) or cerivastatin (n = 1) with a control group exposed to agents known to be non-teratogenic (n = 249). The data were collected by members of the European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS) during individual risk counseling between 1990 and 2009. Standardized procedures for data collection were used in each center.Results: The difference in the rate of major birth defects between the statin-exposed group and the control group was not statistically significant (4.0% vs. 2.7% OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.5-4.5, P = 0.44). The crude rate of spontaneous abortions (12.8% vs. 7.1%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6, P = 0.04) was higher in the exposed group. However, after adjustment to maternal age and gestational age at initial contact, the difference became statistically insignificant. The rate of elective pregnancy-termination (8.8% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.05) was higher and the rate of deliveries resulting in live births was significantly lower in the statin exposed group (77.9% vs. 88.4%, P = 0.002). Prematurity was more frequent in exposed pregnancies (16.1% vs. 8.5%; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.8, P = 0.02). Nonetheless, gestational age at birth (median 39 weeks, IQR 37-40 vs. 39 weeks, IQR 38-40, P = 0.27) and birth weight (median 3280 g, IQR 2835-3590 vs. 3250 g, IQR 2880-3600, P = 0.95) did not differ between exposed and non-exposed pregnancies.Conclusion: This study did not detect a clear teratogenic effect of statins. Its statistical power however is not sufficient to reverse the recommendation of treatment discontinuation during pregnancy. At most, the results are reassuring in case of inadvertent exposure.

High altitude, a natural research laboratory for the study of cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology.

High altitude constitutes an exciting natural laboratory for medical research. Although initially, the aim of high-altitude research was to understand the adaption of the organism to hypoxia and find treatments for altitude-related diseases, during the past decade or so, the scope of this research has broadened considerably. Two important observations led the foundation for the broadening of the scientific scope of high-altitude research. First, high-altitude pulmonary edema represents a unique model that allows studying fundamental mechanisms of pulmonary hypertension and lung edema in humans. Second, the ambient hypoxia associated with high-altitude exposure facilitates the detection of pulmonary and systemic vascular dysfunction at an early stage. Here, we will review studies that, by capitalizing on these observations, have led to the description of novel mechanisms underpinning lung edema and pulmonary hypertension and to the first direct demonstration of fetal programming of vascular dysfunction in humans.

Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia.

BACKGROUND: The provision of sufficient basal insulin to normalize fasting plasma glucose levels may reduce cardiovascular events, but such a possibility has not been formally tested. METHODS: We randomly assigned 12,537 people (mean age, 63.5 years) with cardiovascular risk factors plus impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or type 2 diabetes to receive insulin glargine (with a target fasting blood glucose level of ≤95 mg per deciliter [5.3 mmol per liter]) or standard care and to receive n-3 fatty acids or placebo with the use of a 2-by-2 factorial design. The results of the comparison between insulin glargine and standard care are reported here. The coprimary outcomes were nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes and these events plus revascularization or hospitalization for heart failure. Microvascular outcomes, incident diabetes, hypoglycemia, weight, and cancers were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6.2 years (interquartile range, 5.8 to 6.7). Rates of incident cardiovascular outcomes were similar in the insulin-glargine and standard-care groups: 2.94 and 2.85 per 100 person-years, respectively, for the first coprimary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.11; P=0.63) and 5.52 and 5.28 per 100 person-years, respectively, for the second coprimary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.11; P=0.27). New diabetes was diagnosed approximately 3 months after therapy was stopped among 30% versus 35% of 1456 participants without baseline diabetes (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P=0.05). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were 1.00 versus 0.31 per 100 person-years. Median weight increased by 1.6 kg in the insulin-glargine group and fell by 0.5 kg in the standard-care group. There was no significant difference in cancers (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: When used to target normal fasting plasma glucose levels for more than 6 years, insulin glargine had a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes and cancers. Although it reduced new-onset diabetes, insulin glargine also increased hypoglycemia and modestly increased weight. (Funded by Sanofi; ORIGIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069784.).

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: update on management strategies.

Purpose of reviewAtherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) usually occurs in patients at high risk of vascular disease, and is associated with increased mortality. The primary goals of ARAS treatment include the control of blood pressure (BP), the improved renal function, and the benefit on cardiovascular events. Although medical therapy remains the standard approach to the management of ARAS, percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA) revascularization can be a therapeutic option under certain conditions.Recent findingsRecent evidence confirms that ARAS increases cardiovascular risk, independent of BP and renal function. This suggests that revascularization might potentially improve overall prognosis, but no data are available currently. In cases of significant ARAS, the accepted indications for PTRA are uncontrollable hypertension, gradual or acute renal function decline with the use of agents blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, and recurrent flash pulmonary edema. The key point of treatment success remains in all cases a careful patient selection.SummaryAlthough the atherosclerotic lesions of the renal arteries tend to progress over time, the anatomical lesion progression is not always associated with changes in BP. Furthermore, a poor correlation was noted between the degree of anatomic stenosis and glomerular filtration rate. The high cardiovascular risk warrants aggressive pharmacological treatment to prevent progression of the generalized vascular disorder. Ongoing trials will show whether PTRA revascularization has added, long-term effects on BP, renal function, and cardiovascular prognosis. With or without PTRA revascularization, medical therapy using antihypertensive agents, statins, and aspirin is necessary in almost all cases.

Pregnancy outcome following maternal exposure to statins: a multicenter prospective study

Introduction Statin use in women of childbearing age is increasingly common. However, published data on pregnancy outcome after exposure to statins are scarce and conflicting. This contribution addresses the safety of statin use during pregnancy.Materials and Methods In a multi-centre (n = 11), prospective study we compared the outcomes of 249 women exposed during the 1st trimester of pregnancy to simvastatin (n = 124), atorvastatin (n = 67), pravastatin (n = 32), rosuvastatin (n = 18), fl uvastatin (n = 7) or cerivastatin (n = 1) with a control group exposed to agents known to be non-teratogenic (n = 249). Data were collected by members of the European Network of Teratology Information Services during individual risk counselling.Results The difference in the rate of major birth defects between the statinexposed and the control group was statistically insignificant (4.0% versus 2.7% OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.5-4.5, p = 0.44). The crude rate of spontaneous abortions (12.8% versus 7.1%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6, p = 0.04) was higher in the exposed group. However, after adjustment to maternal age and gestational age at initial contact, the difference became insignificant. The rate of elective pregnancy-termination (8.8% versus 4.4%, p = 0.05) was higher and the rate of live births was lower in the exposed group (77.9% versus 88.4%, p = 0.002). Prematurity was more frequent in exposed pregnancies (16.1% versus 8.5%; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1- 3.8, p = 0.02). Nonetheless, gestational age at birth (median 39 weeks, IQR 37-40 versus 39 weeks, IQR 38-40, p = 0.27) and birth weight (median 3280 g, IQR 2835-3590 versus 3250 g, IQR 2880- 3600, p = 0.95) did not differ between exposed and non-exposed pregnancies.Conclusion This study did not detect a teratogenic effect of statins. Its statistical power however is not sufficient to reverse the recommendation of treatment discontinuation during pregnancy.

Comparison of application of the ACC/AHA guidelines, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in a European cohort.

IMPORTANCE: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines introduced a prediction model and lowered the threshold for treatment with statins to a 7.5% 10-year hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Implications of the new guideline's threshold and model have not been addressed in non-US populations or compared with previous guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To determine population-wide implications of the ACC/AHA, the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines using a cohort of Dutch individuals aged 55 years or older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We included 4854 Rotterdam Study participants recruited in 1997-2001. We calculated 10-year risks for "hard" ASCVD events (including fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease [CHD] and stroke) (ACC/AHA), hard CHD events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, CHD mortality) (ATP-III), and atherosclerotic CVD mortality (ESC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Events were assessed until January 1, 2012. Per guideline, we calculated proportions of individuals for whom statins would be recommended and determined calibration and discrimination of risk models. RESULTS: The mean age was 65.5 (SD, 5.2) years. Statins would be recommended for 96.4% (95% CI, 95.4%-97.1%; n = 1825) of men and 65.8% (95% CI, 63.8%-67.7%; n = 1523) of women by the ACC/AHA, 52.0% (95% CI, 49.8%-54.3%; n = 985) of men and 35.5% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.5%; n = 821) of women by the ATP-III, and 66.1% (95% CI, 64.0%-68.3%; n = 1253) of men and 39.1% (95% CI, 37.1%-41.2%; n = 906) of women by ESC guidelines. With the ACC/AHA model, average predicted risk vs observed cumulative incidence of hard ASCVD events was 21.5% (95% CI, 20.9%-22.1%) vs 12.7% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.5%) for men (192 events) and 11.6% (95% CI, 11.2%-12.0%) vs 7.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-9.2%) for women (151 events). Similar overestimation occurred with the ATP-III model (98 events in men and 62 events in women) and ESC model (50 events in men and 37 events in women). The C statistic was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71) in men and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.73) in women for hard ASCVD (ACC/AHA), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) in men and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) in women for hard CHD (ATP-III), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.82) in men and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83) in women for CVD mortality (ESC). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this European population aged 55 years or older, proportions of individuals eligible for statins differed substantially among the guidelines. The ACC/AHA guideline would recommend statins for nearly all men and two-thirds of women, proportions exceeding those with the ATP-III or ESC guidelines. All 3 risk models provided poor calibration and moderate to good discrimination. Improving risk predictions and setting appropriate population-wide thresholds are necessary to facilitate better clinical decision making.

Accès sans prescription aux statines: bénéfique ou délétère. [Over-the-counter statins: benefit or harmful?]

Making statin available over the counter is one of the measures proposed to correct its underuse. Since May 2004, simvastatin 10 mg is sold over the counter in Great Britain. But uncertainties persist concerning the efficacy of statin in primary prevention and at a 10 mg dose. Finally, there is a risk of side effects and drug interactions. Beyond the correction of statin underuse and the hope of coronary heart disease mortality reduction, the British decision highlighted the will to give individuals a sense of responsibility concerning their health and its financial cost. Anyway, the benefit of switching statin from prescription to over the counter should be experimentally evaluated before its introduction.

Evaluation of the risk of congenital cardiovascular defects associated with use of paroxetine during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: In 2005-2006, several studies noted an increased risk of cardiovascular birth defects associated with maternal use of paroxetine compared with other antidepressants in the same class. In this study, the authors sought to determine whether paroxetine was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular defects in infants of women exposed to the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy. METHOD: From teratology information services around the world, the authors collected prospectively ascertained, unpublished cases of infants exposed to paroxetine early in the first trimester of pregnancy and compared them with an unexposed cohort. The authors also contacted the authors of published database studies on antidepressants as a class to determine how many of the women in those studies had been exposed to paroxetine and the rates of cardiovascular defects in their infants. RESULTS: The authors were able to ascertain the outcomes of 1,174 infants from eight services. The rates of cardiac defects in the paroxetine group and in the unexposed group were both 0.7%. The rate in the database studies (2,061 cases from four studies) was 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular defects following use in early pregnancy, as the incidence in more than 3,000 infants was well within the population incidence of approximately 1%.

Haben selektive COX-2-Hemmer unerwünschte renale und kardiovaskuläre Wirkungen [Do selective COX-2 inhibitors have adverse renal and cardiovascular effects?].

Selective cyclooxygenase-2-inhibitors (COX-2) were developed as an alternative to the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) in order to reduce their known gastrointestinal and renal toxicity. Several recent studies have shown the complex mechanism of the cyclooxygenase-2. The inhibition of the COX-2 has effects on renal hemodynamics, renal salt and water retention and may increase the thromboembolic and therefore the cardiovascular risk. The renal toxicity of the COX-2 inhibitors is similar to that of traditional NSAID. Regarding these data, COX-2 inhibitors should be prescribed with much caution to high risk patients, that is, patients with renal failure and/or cardiovascular diseases.