Perioperative evaluation of cardiac surgical risk: particularities in the emergency surgery - from the guidelines to the clinical practice.

RATIONALE: Cardiac risk in patients undergoing surgery depends on many factors from the patient's cardiovascular history to the surgical procedure itself, with its particularities, the type of anesthesia, fluid exchanges and the supervision of the patient. Therefore, this risk must be carefully considered and it determines the endorsement of perioperative measures with important medical implications. OBJECTIVE: Perioperative cardiac risk evaluation guidelines were published since 2010 and they represent a highly important assessmnet tool. Emergency surgery requires an adaptation of the guidelines to the actual medical situations in extreme conditions. METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION: Analyzing the way the perioperative evaluation itself is conducted is an extremely important tool. Quantifying the clinical application of the guidelines, one can monitor real parameters and find solutions for improving medical care. The current study was conducted on a representative sample of 8326 patients, respecting the recommendation strategies for calculating the surgical risk adapted for the emergency surgery setting. The dominant conclusion is the need to develop a standardized form, summarized for quick and objective assessment of perioperative cardiac risk score. Only a complex medical team could calculate this score while the decisional team leader for the surgical patient remains the surgeon.

Physiopathological aspects of the subclinical alterations of thyroid function associated with acute coronary syndromes.

The subclinical modification of thyroid function represents an important risk factor for the development of acute coronary syndromes, neglected up to this day. Knowledge of the physiopathological processes implicated in the alteration of thyroid function that induces cardiovascular dysfunction is a necessity for the understanding of the phenomena and for the finding of the adequate therapeutic solutions. While recognizing the thyroid dysfunction as a modifiable risk factor for the acute coronary syndrome, we encountered a new challenge for the clinical research regarding its implications. The ability to manage the altered thyroid homeostasis may represent a new stage of prevention at a population level for the reduction of the cardiac risk, a stage which implies a risk factor that may remain clinically mute for a long period of time if left undiagnosed, however influencing the development of the acute coronary syndromes.

Efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan combination therapy in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled on amlodipine monotherapy.

UNLABELLED: ABSTRACT (ARB), in essential hypertensive patients not adequately controlled by amlodipine monotherapy. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study in patients with essential hypertension. After a washout period followed by a single-blind amlodipine 10 mg run-in period, patients with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) > or =90 mmHg and <110 mmHg were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan (10/160 mg o.d.) or amlodipine (10 mg o.d.) for 8 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00171002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in msDBP at study endpoint. Secondary efficacy variables were change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), responder rate (msDBP <90 mmHg or > or =10 mmHg reduction from baseline) and DBP control rate (msDBP <90 mmHg). RESULTS: Of the 1283 patients enrolled in single-blind period, 944 were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg (n = 473) and amlodipine 10 mg (n = 471). Statistically significant greater reductions (p < 0.0001) from baseline in msSBP/msDBP were observed with combination therapy (12.9/11.4 mmHg) compared to monotherapy (10.0/9.3 mmHg). Responder rate was significantly greater (p = 0.0011) with combination therapy (79.0%) compared to monotherapy (70.1%). The percentage of patients with controlled DBP was also significantly (p < 0.0001) higher with combination therapy (77.8%) compared to monotherapy (66.5%). Incidence of peripheral oedema was slightly higher with amlodipine monotherapy (9.4%) compared to combination therapy (7.6%). CONCLUSION: The combination of amlodipine/valsartan in this 8-week double-blind study provided additional BP control and was well tolerated in patients inadequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy. Results should be interpreted with the knowledge that study entry criteria may limit application to a wider population.