Association of varicosities and concomitant deep venous thrombosis in patients with superficial venous thrombosis, a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) co-existence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) can be present. Varicosities are considered as a risk factor for both SVT and DVT separately. However, current evidence is contradictory whether varicosities are associated with an increased or reduced prevalence of concomitant DVT in patients with SVT. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic value of both presence and absence of varicosities in the detection of concomitant DVT in non-hospitalized patients with SVT. METHODS: In MEDLINE and EMBASE, a systematic search was performed to collect all published studies on this topic. The selected papers were critically appraised. By diagnostic 2 × 2 tables prior probabilities and predictive values were computed. RESULTS: Six relevant articles were identified. The prior probability of concomitant DVT in patients referred from primary care to the outpatient clinic varied between 13 and 34%. In five studies, absence of varicosities was related to a higher probability of concomitant DVT (33-44%) compared to a presence of varicosities (3-23%). The sixth study showed an inversed, non-significant association: DVT was present in 21% of patients with SVT on non-varicose veins versus in 35% of patients with SVT on varicose veins. CONCLUSION: In five out of six studies on patients with SVT in outpatient settings, absence of varicosities was related to a higher probability of concomitant DVT. Further research is needed to determine whether an assessment of varicosities in general practice could result in an improved selection of patients who require additional imaging to detect or exclude DVT.

An oral mixed fat load is followed by a modest anti-inflammatory adipocytokine response in overweight patients with metabolic syndrome.

We investigated the postprandial changes in plasma levels of adipocytokines in overweight patients with metabolic syndrome after an oral fat load. After an oral fat load and during a prolonged fast, blood was drawn at 0, 2, 3, 4 and 8 h for measurement of adiponectin, adipsin, cathepsin S, chemerin, hepatic growth factor, interferon-γ-inducible protein-10, leptin, macrophage chemoattractant protein-1, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, nerve growth factor, retinol binding protein-4, resistin, serum amyloid A1, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 and thrombopoietin using a microbead-based Luminex assay. Area under the curves (AUC) were calculated and compared. Plasma adiponectin levels were higher after an oral fat load compared to fasting at t = 2 h (950 ± 513 vs. -1,881 ± 713 ng/ml) while the plasma levels for adipsin (-9 ± 5 vs. 16 ± 5 ng/ml), chemerin (-122 ± 35 vs. 13 ± 21 ng/ml), SAA-1 (-391 ± 213 vs. 522 ± 173 ng/ml) and TPO (-335 ± 144 vs. 622 ± 216 ng/ml) were lower after an oral fat load compared to fasting. The baseline corrected AUC for IP-10 was higher after fat load compared to fasting (median -116 pg h/ml; IQR -270 to 10 vs. -21 pg h/ml; IQR -136 to 418 (p = 0.047). In conclusion, in overweight male subjects with the metabolic syndrome, an oral fat load is accompanied with a modest anti-inflammatory response of adipose tissue-derived adipocytokines.

The effect of statin alone or in combination with ezetimibe on postprandial lipoprotein composition in obese metabolic syndrome patients.

INTRODUCTION: Fasting and postprandial hypertriglyceridemia are essential features of metabolic syndrome. Statins decrease fasting lipid levels but fail to reduce fat load induced hypertriglyceridemia. We established whether ezetimibe combined with simvastatin differently influences post fat load lipid levels and lipoprotein composition as compared to simvastatin 80mg monotherapy in obese male metabolic syndrome patients. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, double blind, crossover trial. Male obese metabolic syndrome (ATPIII) patients (n=19) were treated with simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg for 6 weeks. At the start of the study and after each treatment period oral fat loading tests were performed. Lipoprotein fractions (triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL), IDL, LDL, and HDL) were isolated by density gradient ultracentrifugation. Postprandial changes in lipid levels were integrated as areas under the curve (AUCs). RESULTS: Fasting LDL-C, RLP-C and triglycerides were lowered equally by both simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg. Also postprandial plasma triglyceride levels (net AUC-TG) were equally lowered after both treatments (5.16+/-0.50mmolh/l after simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg and 6.09+/-0.71mmolh/l after simvastatin 80mg) compared to fat loading without treatment (6.64+/-0.86mmolh/l). In addition, triglyceride-content in lipoprotein fractions after fat load (net AUCs) were also equally reduced after both treatments. Similarly, TRL. IDL and LDL cholesterol and apoB concentrations were equally affected by both treatment regimens, leading to a reduced number of circulating particles, in both conditions. However the composition of these particles remained the same. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg were equally effective in reducing fasting and post fat load plasma lipid, and lipoprotein concentrations and lipoprotein composition in obese metabolic syndrome patients.

Endothelial progenitor cell levels in obese men with the metabolic syndrome and the effect of simvastatin monotherapy vs. simvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy.

AIMS: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) contribute to endothelial regeneration and thereby protect against cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with manifest CVD have reduced EPC levels, but it is not clear if this also occurs in subjects at high CVD risk without manifest atherosclerotic disease. Therefore, we aimed to first, measure circulating levels of EPCs in subjects without manifest CVD but at high cardiovascular risk due to obesity and presence of the metabolic syndrome. Second, we evaluated the effect on EPC levels of two lipid-lowering treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: Circulating CD34+KDR+ EPC levels were reduced by nearly 40% in obese men with the metabolic syndrome compared to non-obese healthy controls (331 +/- 193 vs. 543 +/- 164 EPC/mL, P = 0.006). In a randomized double-blind cross-over study comparing intensive lipid-lowering treatment using 80 mg simvastatin mono-treatment with combination treatment of 10 mg simvastatin and 10 mg ezetimibe, we found a similar treatment effect on EPC levels. Secondary analyses of these data suggested that both treatment regimens had increased circulating EPCs to control levels (626 +/- 428 after combination treatment, P < 0.01; 524 +/- 372 EPC/mL after monotherapy, P < 0.05). Serum levels of EPC-mobilizing factor SCF-sR correlated with reduced EPC levels and normalized concurrently with treatment. CONCLUSION: EPC levels are reduced in apparently healthy men with abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome, even in the absence of manifest CVD. This is important as EPCs contribute to endothelial regeneration and thereby protect against CVD. SCF-sR may be a candidate serum marker of circulating EPC levels. Treatment with low-dose statin with ezetimibe combination therapy or high-dose statin monotherapy has similar effects on the reduced EPC levels.

Adipose tissue dysfunction in obesity, diabetes, and vascular diseases.

The classical perception of adipose tissue as a storage place of fatty acids has been replaced over the last years by the notion that adipose tissue has a central role in lipid and glucose metabolism and produces a large number of hormones and cytokines, e.g. tumour necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-6, adiponectin, leptin, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. The increased prevalence of excessive visceral obesity and obesity-related cardiovascular risk factors is closely associated with the rising incidence of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus. This clustering of vascular risk factors in (visceral) obesity is often referred to as metabolic syndrome. The close relationship between an increased quantity of visceral fat, metabolic disturbances, including low-grade inflammation, and cardiovascular diseases and the unique anatomical relation to the hepatic portal circulation has led to an intense endeavour to unravel the specific endocrine functions of this visceral fat depot. The objective of this paper is to describe adipose tissue dysfunction, delineate the relation between adipose tissue dysfunction and obesity and to describe how adipose tissue dysfunction is involved in the development of diabetes mellitus type 2 and atherosclerotic vascular diseases. First, normal physiology of adipocytes and adipose tissue will be described.

The effects of low-dose simvastatin and ezetimibe compared to high-dose simvastatin alone on post-fat load endothelial function in patients with metabolic syndrome: a randomized double-blind crossover trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Insulin resistance is associated with postprandial hyperlipidemia and endothelial dysfunction. Patients with metabolic syndrome, characterized by insulin resistance, are at increased cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether a similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction with combination therapy of low-dose simvastatin and ezetimibe or with high-dose simvastatin alone has similar effects on (post-fat load) endothelial function. METHODS: Randomized, double blind, crossover trial in 19 male obese patients with metabolic syndrome with high-dose simvastatin 80 mg versus combination therapy of low-dose simvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg. Fasting and post-fat load lipids and endothelial function (brachial artery flow-mediated dilation) were determined. RESULTS: Fasting LDL-c concentrations (2.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/L) and fasting endothelial function (6.9 +/- 0.8 vs. 7.6 +/- 1.2%) were the same after both treatments. Although post-fat load plasma triglycerides concentrations were higher (3.2 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.2 mmol x h/L) with combination therapy compared to monotherapy, ApoB particles were comparable (0.9 +/- 3.3 vs. -0.2 +/- 2.3 g x h/L). Combination therapy did not decrease post-fat load endothelial function (7.6 +/- 1.2 vs. 7.7 +/- 1.6%), contrary to high-dose simvastatin monotherapy (6.9 +/- 0.8 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with low-dose simvastatin and ezetimibe preserved post-fat load endothelial function, contrary to treatment with high-dose simvastatin monotherapy in male metabolic syndrome patients. There were no differences in fasting lipid profiles and endothelial function.

Lipid-lowering therapy does not affect the postprandial drop in high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-c) plasma levels in obese men with metabolic syndrome: a randomized double blind crossover trial.

INTRODUCTION: The postprandial lipid metabolism in metabolic syndrome patients is disturbed and may add to the increased cardiovascular risk in these patients. It is not known whether postprandial high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-c) metabolism is also affected and whether this can be influenced by statin and/or ezetimibe treatment. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, double blind, crossover trial comparing simvastatin 80 mg with simvastatin/ezetimibe 10 mg/10 mg treatment for 6 weeks on postprandial HDL-c metabolism in 15, nonsmoking, male, obese metabolic syndrome patients (Adult Treatment Panel III, ATPIII). Only study medication was allowed. HDL-c concentrations, cholesteryl ester transfer (CET), CET protein (CETP) mass and adiponectin were measured before and after oral fat loading. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00189085. RESULTS: Plasma HDL-c levels remained stable during continuous fasting following an overnight fast. Pre-fat load HDL-c concentrations without treatment, after simvastatin and simvastatin/ezetimibe treatment were 1.15 +/- 0.04, 1.16 +/- 0.05 and 1.11 +/- 0.04 mmol/l. Fat load induced a 11% drop in HDL-c plasma levels; 1.02 +/- 0.05 mmol/l (P < 0.001) which was not affected by either therapy. Triglyceride levels during fat load were similar after both treatments. Total CET increased from 9.73 +/- 0.70 to 12.20 +/- 0.67 nmol/ml/h (P = 0.004). Four hours after fat loading CETP mass was increased while adiponectin levels were decreased, irrespective of treatment. DISCUSSION: HDL-c levels decrease as CET increases after fat loading in obese metabolic syndrome patients. This is not influenced by either simvastatin or simvastatin/ezetimibe treatment. After fat loading, CETP mass and CET increased, and adiponectin decreased pointing towards a potential role for intra-abdominal fat. Decreased postprandial HDL-c levels may contribute to the increased cardiovascular risk in metabolic syndrome patients on top of already low HDL-c levels.

Low plasma levels of adiponectin are associated with low risk for future cardiovascular events in patients with clinical evident vascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Adiponectin is considered to have anti-inflammatory, insulin-sensitizing, and antiatherosclerotic properties. In the present prospective study, the relationship between metabolic syndrome (Adult Treatment Panel III) and adiponectin plasma levels and the relationship between plasma adiponectin levels and future cardiovascular events were investigated. METHODS: A case-cohort study of 431 patients with clinical evident vascular disease from the Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease study. The relationship between adiponectin plasma levels and new vascular events was investigated with Cox regression, adjusted for potential confounders and effect modifiers (age, sex, renal function [modification of diet in renal disease], body mass index, high sensitive C-reactive protein, use of angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibition and/or AII antagonists, and presence of metabolic syndrome or impaired renal function). RESULTS: Plasma adiponectin levels were lower in patients with metabolic syndrome as compared with patients without (7.9 +/- 0.3 vs 5.2 +/- 0.3 microg/mL) and decreased with the number of components. During a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, 216 patients had a new cardiovascular event. Lower adiponectin plasma levels were associated with a lower risk for future cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.99). This relationship was not influenced by renal function, body mass index, and renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents or modified by metabolic syndrome and impaired renal function. CONCLUSION: In patients with clinical evident vascular disease, lower adiponectin levels were associated with a lower cardiovascular risk. Therefore, it may be hypothesized that the potential antiatherosclerotic properties of adiponectin do not apply for patients with already established vascular disease.

Levels of homocysteine are increased in metabolic syndrome patients but are not associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, in contrast to patients without the metabolic syndrome.

AIM: The metabolic syndrome is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Elevated plasma homocysteine may cause or result from insulin resistance, and may indicate vascular risk or be actively involved in atherogenesis. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between homocysteine, the metabolic syndrome and the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with manifest vascular disease. METHODS: A cohort of 2169 patients with manifest vascular disease was followed for a mean period of 2.8 years. Plasma homocysteine was measured at baseline. Metabolic syndrome was defined by NCEP criteria. RESULTS: Homocysteine levels were higher in metabolic syndrome patients compared to patients without the metabolic syndrome (14.9+/-0.2 v 14.1+/-0.2 micromol/l; p = 0.002) and increased with the presence of its components (from 0 to 5) (12.7 to 15.9 micromol/l; p<0.001). During follow-up, 52 strokes, 67 myocardial infarctions, 5 fatal ruptures of aortic aneurysms and 53 vascular deaths occurred. Patients without the metabolic syndrome and homocysteine levels in the highest tertile had increased risk for events (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.5) compared to patients without the metabolic syndrome and homocysteine levels in the lowest tertile. The presence of the metabolic syndrome increased the risk (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.2), but elevated homocysteine levels further increased the risk only marginally (2.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic syndrome patients have elevated homocysteine levels, but these higher levels are not associated with an increased risk for new cardiovascular events. In contrast, elevated homocysteine levels confer increased risk in patients without the metabolic syndrome.