European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging survey on the evaluation of mitral regurgitation.

AIMS: To evaluate the diagnosis and imaging of patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) and the management in routine clinical practice across Europe, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Scientific Initiatives Committee performed a survey across European centres. In particular, the routine use of echocardiography, advanced imaging modalities, heart valve clinics, and heart valve teams was explored. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 61 responders, mainly from tertiary centres or university hospitals, from 26 different countries responded to the survey, which consisted of 22 questions. For most questions related to echocardiography and advanced imaging, the answers were relatively homogeneous and demonstrated good adherence to current recommendations. In particular, the centres used a multi-parametric echocardiographic approach and selected the effective regurgitant orifice and vena contracta width as their preferred assessments. 2D measurements are still the most widely used parameters to assess left ventricular structure; however, the majority use 3D trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TOE) to evaluate valve morphology in severe MR. The majority of centres reported the onsite availability and clinical use of ergometric stress echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography (CCT), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Heart valve clinics and heart valve teams were also widely prevalent. CONCLUSION: Consistent with current guidelines, echocardiography (transthoracic echocardiography and TOE) remains the first-line and central imaging modality for the assessment of MR although the complementary use of 3D TOE, CCT, and CMR appears to be growing. Heart valve clinics and heart valve teams are now widely prevalent.

A comparative study of biomarkers for risk prediction in acute coronary syndrome-Results of the SIESTA (Systemic Inflammation Evaluation in non-ST-elevation Acute coronary syndrome) study.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the 1-year predictive value of several inflammatory and non-inflammatory biomarkers in ACS patients. METHODS: In 610 patients (73.0% male)--36.0% unstable angina (UA) and 64.0% NSTEMI--we assessed high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukins 6, 10 and 18, soluble CD40 ligand, P- and E-selectin, NT-proBNP, fibrinogen and cystatin C at hospital admission. Two outcomes at 1-year follow up were selected for analysis: (1) all-cause death, MI, UA, or coronary revascularization, and (2) all-cause death, and non-fatal MI. The effect of biomarker levels on endpoints was examined by the Cox proportional hazards model, and their discrimination ability with the C statistic (AUC). RESULTS: Of 549 patients (90.0%) who completed the 1-year follow up, 206 (37.5%) and 54 (8.9%) reached the first and second composite endpoints, respectively. None of the biomarkers studied improved prediction of the first endpoint. However, considered as continuous variables, and in combination, NT-proBNP and fibrinogen, increased the AUC from 0.64 (95% CI 0.55-0.72) to 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.81; p=0.02) for prediction of the second endpoint. Cut-off values for NT-proBNP and fibrinogen, regarding best sensitivity and specificity for prediction of the secondary endpoint were 1043.9 ng/L and 4.47 mg/dL, respectively. For these cut-off points, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 40.5% vs 59.5%, 83.3% vs 67.1%, 18.8% vs 14.9% and 93.5% vs 94.4% for NT-proBNP and fibrinogen, respectively. CONCLUSION: In ACS patients, inflammatory biomarkers offer modest incremental information to that provided by clinical risk markers. Fibrinogen and NT-proBNP measurements, however, improve cardiovascular risk prediction.