Comparing characteristics and clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in low-flow vs normal-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction in an Asian population.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In severe aortic stenosis (AS), deterioration of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to <50% is an AHA/ACC class I indication for valve replacement, regardless of symptoms. Controversy surrounds prognosis of low-flow AS compared to normal-flow, and no study has examined LVEF deterioration. We compared factors associated with LVEF deterioration (to <50%) and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive subjects with low-flow (stroke volume index <35 mL/m2 , n=56) and normal-flow (n=72) severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm2 ) with preserved LVEF (>50%) and with paired echocardiography were studied. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified factors associated with LVEF deterioration. Clinical outcomes were determined on follow-up for more than 5 years. RESULTS: Significant LVEF deterioration (to <50%) was seen in 18% of low-flow (initial LVEF 63±8% to 32±9%) and 18% of normal-flow AS (61±7% to 31±12%). Independent factors in low-flow AS were hypertension (OR: 30.7, 95% CI: 2.0-467.6, P=.014) and higher end-systolic wall stress (OR: 1.086, 95% CI: 1.022-1.153, P=.008), compared to normal-flow, which were hypertension (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 3.1-81.9, P=.001), higher septal E/E' ratio (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01-1.35, P=.043), lower septal S' velocity (OR: 0.204, 95% CI: 0.061-0.682, P=.010), and higher end-systolic wall stress (OR: 1.051, 95% CI: 1.001-1.104, P=.047). Overall, a third of the cohort experienced MACE, regardless of flow (log-rank 0.048, P=.827). However, aortic valve replacement (AVR) rates were lower in low-flow AS (20% vs 43%, P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: Low-flow AS despite normal LVEF appears similar to normal-flow in terms of LVEF deterioration and clinical outcomes in our Asian population. AVR rate was lower even though low-flow may not reflect less severe disease.

Trends in importation of communicable diseases into Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Singapore is a transition country in Southeast Asia that is both vulnerable and receptive to the introduction and re-introduction of imported communicable diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a 10-year period between 1998 and 2007 we studied the trend, epidemiological characteristics, proportion of imported versus local transmission of malaria, viral hepatitis (hepatitis A and E), enteric fevers (typhoid and paratyphoid), cholera, chikungunya and SARS. RESULTS: Of a total of 4617 cases of the above selected diseases notified in Singapore, 3599 (78.0%) were imported. The majority of the imported cases originated from Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Malaria constituted the largest bulk (of which 95.9% of the 2126 reported cases were imported), followed by hepatitis A (57.1% of 1053 cases imported), typhoid (87.6% of 596 cases imported), paratyphoid (87.6% of 241 cases imported), and hepatitis E (68.8% of 231 cases imported). Furthermore, there were 14 cases of imported cholera, 6 cases of imported severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and 13 cases of imported chikungunya. CONCLUSION: This study underlines that diseases such as malaria, viral hepatitis and enteric fever occur in Singapore mainly because of importation. The main origin of importation was South and Southeast Asia. The proportion of imported diseases in relation to overall passenger traffic has decreased over the past 10 years.

Framingham risk score inadequately predicts cardiac risk in young patients presenting with a first myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is a well-validated epidemiologic tool used to assess the risk for a fi rst cardiac event. Because young patients presenting with a fi rst myocardial infarction (MI) tend to have less significant risk profiles compared with older patients, we hypothesized that FRS may underestimate cardiac risk in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1267 patients between January 2002 and November 2007 presenting with a fi rst MI. Patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus and vascular disease were excluded. FRS was calculated for each patient. Patients were divided based on their age: group A (<40 years), group B (40 to 64 years) and group C (> or =65 years). RESULTS: The mean age was 54.7 +/- 11 years, 88.4% of the patients were males. Younger patients were more likely to be assigned with lower scores. Based on FRS, 63.0%, 29.3% and 14.2% of group A, B and C patients were classified as low risk (10-year risk for cardiac events<10%) respectively, P <0.001. The sensitivity of FRS in identifying at least intermediate risk subjects (10-year risk for cardiac events >10%) was 37.0% in group A vs 85.8% in group C (P <0.001). The incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus was higher in younger patients (12.0% vs 13.2% vs 7.1 % in groups A, B and C respectively, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: FRS inadequately predicts cardiac risk in young patients presenting with a fi rst MI. This could be because a significant proportion of these young patients have undiagnosed diabetes mellitus, a coronary artery disease risk equivalent.