Why do we need randomized and epidemiological studies on cardiovascular disease? Evidence-based cardiology VII

Over the last two decades the results of randomized clinical studies, which are powerful aids for correctly assessing therapeutical strategies, have consolidated cardiological practice. In addition, scientifically interesting hypotheses have been generated through the results of epidemiological studies. Properly conducted randomized studies without systematic errors and with statistical power adequate for demonstrating moderate and reasonable benefits in relevant clinical outcomes have provided reliable and strong results altering clinical practice, thus providing adequate treatment for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The dissemination and use of evidence-based medicine in treating coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), and in prevention will prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths annually in developed and developing countries. CVD is responsible for approximately 12 million deaths annually throughout the world, and approximately 60% of these deaths occur in developing countries. During recent years, an increase in mortality and morbidity rates due to CVD has occurred in developing countries. This increase is an indication that an epidemiological (demographic, economical, and health-related) transition is taking place in developing countries and this transition implies a global epidemic of CVD, which will require wide-ranging and globally effective strategies for prevention. The identification of conventional and emerging risk factors for CVD, as well as their management in high-risk individuals, has contributed to the decrease in the mortality rate due to CVD. Through a national collaboration, several multi-center and multinational randomized and epidemiological studies have been carried out throughout Brazil, thus contributing not only to a generalized scientific growth in different Brazilian hospitals but also to the consolidation of an increasingly evidence-based clinical practice.

Mitral valve disease with rheumatic appearance in the presence of left ventricular endomyocardial fibrosis

This is a report of a nine-year-old boy with both mitral stenosis and regurgitation and extensive endomyocardial fibrosis of the left ventricle. Focus is given to the singularity of the fibrotic process, with an emphasis on the etiopathogenic aspects.

Are apolipoproteins A and B better than lipoproteins for assessing risk of obstructive coronary heart disease?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether apolipoproteins A-I (Apo A-I) and B (Apo B) have, higher ensitivity (SN), specificity (SP) and positive predictive value (PPV) than lipoproteins (LP), total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoprotein (HDL), low density lipoprotein (LDL), very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), and triglycerides (TGL) in assessing the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: This is a transversal case-control study of 241 patients, who were divided into two groups: 1) 145 patients with CHD, and 2) 96 patients without coronary disease. A model of logistic regression to evaluate the relation between the LPs and CHD was developed in which variables with a p-alpha <0.1 were included. RESULTS: Apo A-I levels were higher in the patients without CHD, (OR 2.08, CI 1.20-3.57). There were no statistical differences between the values of Apo A-I and the remaining lipid fractions (Apo A-I: 67%; Apo B: 100%; PPV: TC= 71%; TGC=71%; HDL=71%; LDL=71%). The costs of the tests in Reais were as follows: Apo A-I: R$ 56.60; Apo B-100: R$ 56.60; TC: R$ 9.94; HDL: R$ 21.30; LDL: R$ 28.40; TGL: R$ 14.20. CONCLUSION: Levels of Apo A-I and Apo B have no advantage over conventional lipoproteins in predicting the risk of CHD, despite the statistical association between Apo A-I and CHD; in addition, their costs are higher than those of the conventional lipoproteins.