Notes![what is notes.io? What is notes.io?](/theme/images/whatisnotesio.png)
![]() ![]() Notes - notes.io |
The stroke risk scoring system for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients can vary considerably based on patients' status while receiving ablation. This study aimed to demonstrate a novel scoring system for stroke risk stratification based on the status of catheter ablation.
First, 787 patients with AF undergoing ablation were matched according to age, sex, and underlying diseases with the same number of patients not undergoing ablation using the propensity-score (PS)-matched cohort. Multivariate Cox model-derived coefficients were used to construct a simple point-based clinical model using the PS-matched cohort. Thereafter, the novel model (AF-CA-Stroke score) was validated in a nationwide AF cohort.
The AF-CA-Stroke score was calculated based on age (point=5), ablation status (point=4), prior history of stroke (point=4), chronic kidney disease (point=2),diabetes mellitus (point=1), and congestive heart failure (point=1). Risk function to predict the 1-, 5-, 10-year absolute stroke risks was reported. The estimated area under the receive operating characteristic curve of the AF-CA-Stroke score in the PS-matched cohort was 0.845 (95% confidence interval 0.824-0.865) to predict long-term stroke. A validation study showed that discrimination abilities in the AF-CA-Stroke scores were significantly higher than those in the CHADS
/CHA
DS
VASc scores. The best cut-off value of the AF-CA-Stroke score to predict future strokes was≥5.
This novel model-based point scoring system effectively identifies stroke risk using clinical factors and AF ablation status of patients with AF. Various age stratifications and AF ablation should be considered in AF management.
This novel model-based point scoring system effectively identifies stroke risk using clinical factors and AF ablation status of patients with AF. Various age stratifications and AF ablation should be considered in AF management.
Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) with zero or two raphes have been under-represented in previous studies. Whether these patients have unique clinical courses remains unclear. We describe the indications for and types of surgery in patients with BAV, and describe differences between valve morphotypes.
Adults who had undergone aortic and/or aortic valve surgery for BAV disease at our centres were identified and classified according to the Sievers definitions.
317 patients were included (74.4% male, median age at surgery 62years). Of these, 187 (59.0%) had aortic valve surgery, 7 (2.2%) aortic surgery, 120 (37.9%) combined valve and aortic surgery and 3 had a Ross procedure. Most patients had aortic stenosis (71.9%), followed by aortic regurgitation (16.7%). 30-day mortality was low (1.6%).The commonest valve morphology was type-1 (one raphe) in 89.6%; type-0 (no raphes) occurred in 7.9% and type-2 (two raphes) in 2.5%. Patients with type-2 valves were substantially younger at time of surgery than type-1 patients (median 36 vs 63years, p=0.008). A higher proportion of patients with type-0 valves required aortic surgery than those with type-1 (68.0% vs 37.3%, p=0.007). There were no differences between groups for the indication for surgery, valvular abnormality or 30-day mortality.
The number of BAV raphes was independently and significantly associated with age at surgery and the need for aortic intervention. Patients with type 0 and type 2 valves are a small but important proportion of the BAV population, potentially requiring different clinical surveillance and management.
The number of BAV raphes was independently and significantly associated with age at surgery and the need for aortic intervention. Patients with type 0 and type 2 valves are a small but important proportion of the BAV population, potentially requiring different clinical surveillance and management.Previous studies have identified a higher rate of discordance between non-hyperaemic pressure ratios and FFR in the LAD when compared to the other two coronary arteries. We hypothesised that in keeping with recently published data, we would identify a higher discordance rate between diastolic pressure ratio (DPR) and FFR in the LAD compared to the RCA or LCx. In our study, 12.7% of LAD lesions had discordant results compared with 2.4% of non-LAD lesions. This represents a statistically significant increased rate of discordance in LAD lesions compared to non-LAD lesions (p = 0.04986). Note was made of a tendency for non-proximal LAD lesions to be associated with false-positive DPR results in the borderline range (0.88 and 0.89). Chroman 1 cell line In a speculative, hypothesis generating post-hoc analysis, we found an improved diagnostic accuracy of DPR when the cut-off value for a positive DPR in the non-proximal LAD was changed to ≤0.87. It is fathomable that improvements in the diagnostic accuracy of DPR for FFR may be improved by tailoring DPR cut-offs to the location of the lesion assessed.The treatment of active cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) usually involves immunosuppressive therapy, with the goal of preventing inflammation-induced scar formation. In most cases, steroids remain the first-line treatment for CS. However, given the side effect profile of their long-term use, steroid-sparing therapies are increasingly used. There are no published randomized trials of steroid-sparing agents in CS. We sought to do a systematic review to evaluate the current published data on the use of non-steroidal treatments in the management of CS. We searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection databases from inception of database to August 2020 to identify the effectiveness of biological or synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic agents (s- and bDMARDs). Secondary objectives include safety profile as well as the change in the average corticosteroid dose after treatment initiation. Twenty-three studies were ultimately selected for inclusion which included a total of 480 cases of CS treated with a range of both s- and bDMARDs. In all included studies, sDMARDs and bDMARDs were studied in combination with steroids or as second or higher-line treatments after therapeutic failure or intolerance to corticosteroid use. Methotrexate (MTX) and infliximab (IFX) were the most common synthetic and biologic DMARDs studied respectively, reported in about 35% of the studies reviewed. The use of steroid-sparing agents was associated with a reduction in the maintenance steroid dose used. In conclusion, steroids will remain as the cornerstone of anti-inflammatory management in patients with CS until trials on the use and safety profile of other immunosuppressive agents are completed and published.
My Website: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/chroman-1.html
![]() |
Notes is a web-based application for online taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000+ notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 14 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team