Author Interviews, Heart Disease, JAMA, Surgical Research / 16.06.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_49721" align="alignleft" width="198"]Fausto Biancari, Professor of Surgery, University of Turku, Finland Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Oulu, Finland Heart Center, T-Hospital, Hämeentie Turku, Finland Prof. Biancari[/caption] Fausto Biancari, MD, PhD Professor University of Turku and University Oulu, Finland MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Current data is scarce regarding the short- and midterm benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response: In this observational study on 2841 low-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis from the Finnish nationwide FinnValve registry, propensity score matching analysis showed similar 30-day and three-year survival after TAVR and SAVR.
Annals Thoracic Surgery, Author Interviews, Heart Disease, Surgical Research, Yale / 02.01.2015

Karthik Murugiah MBBS Fellow in Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) New Haven, CT 06510MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Karthik Murugiah MBBS Fellow in Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) New Haven, CT 06510 Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Aortic valve disease is common among older people and frequently requires valve replacement. 1-year survival after open surgical aortic valve replacement is high (9 in 10 survive the year after surgery). Our study focuses on the experience of these survivors in terms of the need for hospitalization during the year after surgery. Among patients >65 years of age enrolled in Medicare who underwent surgical replacement of their aortic valve and survived at least one year, 3 in 5 were free from hospitalization during that year. Both, the rates of hospitalization and the average total number of days spent in the hospital in the year following surgery have been decreasing all through the last decade (1999 to 2010).
Author Interviews, Heart Disease, JAMA, Lipids / 29.10.2014

George Thanassoulis, MD MSc FRCP(C) Director, Preventive and Genomic Cardiology FRQ-S Clinician-Scientist/Chercheur-Boursier Clinicien Assistant Professor of Medicine, McGill University McGill University Health Center Montreal, QCMedicalResearch.com Interview with: George Thanassoulis, MD MSc FRCP(C) Director, Preventive and Genomic Cardiology FRQ-S Clinician-Scientist/Chercheur-Boursier Clinicien Assistant Professor of Medicine, McGill University McGill University Health Center Montreal, QC Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Thanassoulis: Although LDL-C (i.e. bad cholesterol) has been linked with aortic valve disease in several prior reports, randomized trials to lower cholesterol in aortic valve disease were not effective suggesting that cholesterol may not be important in valve disease. To address this, we performed a Mendelian randomization study, that showed that a genetic predisposition to LDL-C, was associated with both calcium deposits on the aortic valve and aortic stenosis (I.e. Valve narrowing).  These results can be viewed as the effect of a life-long increase in LDL-C on the incidence of aortic valve disease and suggest that increases in LDL-C cause aortic stenosis.  
Author Interviews, Heart Disease, JAMA / 01.10.2014

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Joanna Chikwe MD Associate Professor Department of Cardiovascular Surgery Mount Sinai Medical Center and Natalia N. Egorova, PhD Department of Health Evidence and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, New York Medical Research: What are the main findings of the study? Answer: This is one of the largest studies to date on the long-term outcomes of patients after aortic valve replacement. We found that bioprosthetic valves are as safe as mechanical valves in younger patients (age 50-69) - specifically, long-term death rates and stroke risk were very similar in patients who had either valve type. The main differences lay in the risk of other long-term complications: patients who had bioprosthetic valves were more likely to need repeat surgery in the long-term, whereas patients who had mechanical valves were more likely to experience a major bleeding event.
Author Interviews, General Medicine, Heart Disease, JAMA / 20.09.2014

MedicalResearch.com Interview  Dongyi (Tony) Du, MD, PhD Division of Epidemiology FDA/CDRH/OSB Medical Research: What are the main findings of the study? Dr. Du: The risk for death on the date of surgery was 60% higher for recipients of mechanical aortic valves than recipients of bioprosthetic aortic valves (OR, 1.61 [95%CI, 1.27-2.04; P < .001]; risk ratio [RR], 1.60). The risk difference decreased to 16% during the 30 days after the date of surgery (OR, 1.18 [95%CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .001]; RR, 1.16). The risk for operative mortality was 19% higher for recipients of mechanical compared with bioprosthetic valves (OR, 1.21 [95%CI, 1.13-1.30; P < .001]; RR, 1.19). The number needed to treat with mechanical valves to observe 1 additional death on the surgery date was 290; to observe 1 additional death within 30 days of surgery, 121.
Heart Disease / 24.09.2013

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Mackram Eleid, MD Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings of the study? Dr. Eleid: Our study investigated the characteristics, outcomes and impact of aortic valve replacement in a large series of 1704 patients with severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area < 1 cm2) and preserved ejection fraction (EF > 50%) according to the flow-gradient classification that incorporates both stroke volume index and mean aortic valve gradient.  The primary findings were that patients with low flow, low gradient AS have lower survival than other flow-gradient patterns (a 3.2-fold increase risk of mortality compared to normal flow, low gradient), and their survival is improved with aortic valve replacement.  Conversely, patients with normal flow and low gradient had a favorable survival with medical management, suggesting a less advanced stage of disease compared to the other groups.  Additionally, a novel observation from this study is that patients with low flow had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and previous heart failure events compared to other groups.