Clinical Research in Cardiology Supplements最新文献

Hypertriglyceridemia is associated with a number of severe diseases such as acute pancreatitis and coronary artery disease. In severe hypertriglyceridemia (SHTG, triglycerides > 1,000 mg/dL), rapid lowering of plasma triglycerides (TG) has to be achieved. Treatment regimes include nutritional intervention, the use of antihyperlipidemic drugs, and therapeutic apheresis. Apheretic treatment is indicated in medical emergencies such as hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis. Reviewing the current literature, plasmapheresis appears to be a safe and useful therapeutic tool in patients suffering from SHTG. Apheretic treatment is able to remove the causative agent for pancreatic inflammation. Data suggests that the use of apheresis should be performed as early as possible in order to achieve best results. The use of plasmapheresis, however, is limited due to the rather high costs and the limited availability of the procedure.

In microcirculation disorders, the therapeutic apheresis seems to have two different effects. The first, achieved after only a few sessions, is acute, consisting of drastic reduction of blood viscosity and obtained with the use of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis, rheopheresis, or fibrinogen apheresis. The second effect is long term, or chronic, and needs to be evaluated after a long course of treatment. The mechanisms underlying the chronic effect are still objects of debate and take into account the pleiotropic effects of apheresis. However, it is likely that the acute effect of apheresis mainly influences the functional components of the vascular damage, and so the derived rheological benefit might last only for a short period. The chronic effect, on the contrary, by acting on the morphological alterations of the vascular walls, requires the apheresis treatment to be prolonged for a longer period or even cycles of treatment to be programmed.

Introduction: Low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) apheresis is a last treatment option for hypercholesterolemic patientsresistant to conservative lipid-lowering therapy. In a retrospective analysis of 8,533 heparin-induced extra-corporeal LDL precipitation apheresis treatments (HELP), we evaluated the efficacy of LDL reduction, the rate of adverse events, and the progression of atherosclerosis.

Methods: Between July 1992 and April 2009, we performed 8,533 HELP apheresis therapies in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Inclusion criteria were FH with insufficient lipidological status under optimal drug therapy and diet, and at least 50 HELP therapies. Left ventricular function and valvular status was checked prior to the first apheresis therapy and at the end of the individual HELP program. Blood samples were taken directly before and after each therapy. Blood count, electrolytes, total cholesterol, LDL-C, high density lipoprotein (HDL-C), triglycerides, lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), and fibrinogen were measured. Adverse events were documented weekly.

Results: We evaluated 27 patients (19 men) with FH (age 49.2 ± 12.5 years (range 10-67 years)). The number of HELP treatments once weekly was between 50 and 790 applications. Mean follow-up time was 7.0 ± 5.2 years (range 1.3-16.6 years). Prior to the individual apheresis program, 44.4% of the patients had a three vessel disease (VD; 25.9% two VD, 25.9% one VD) and 7.4% had a peripheral arterial occlusive disease. During the time of HELP treatment, none of the patients had a myocardial infarction; 3.7% had one percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 11.1% two PCI, 14.8% three PCI, 11.1% ≥ PCI. The patients received 1.2 ± 1.6 (range 0-5) PCI during follow-up time. Adverse events directly associated with HELP therapy were very rare (< 3%). Mean elimination of LDL-C was 63.49 ± 7.1%.

Discussion: The HELP apheresis therapy was well accepted by the patients in our programs. Adverse events during HELP apheresis were rare. This data is in line with the experiences published by other authors who reported an adverse event rate of 3.6% in adults. The LDL-HDL ratio, one of the strongest predictors of premature CHD events, improved significantly during the apheresis program.

Conclusion: HELP is a safe, comfortable, and highly effective treatment in which adverse events are rare. It can reduce the burden of atherosclerosis, with no myocardial infarction and a low coronary intervention rate in our patients.

In the treatment of homozygous and therapy-resistant hypercholesterolemia, lipid apheresis enables not only low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to be lowered by approximately 60%, but also oxidative stress factors to be influenced and adhesion molecules reduced. This was investigated in a group of 12 patients using the heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL precipitation (H.E.L.P.) procedure.A significant lowering of LDL cholesterol and fibrinogen leads to an improvement in rheology and endothelial function, detectable and measurable within approximately 20 h by assessing minimum coronary resistance using positron emission tomography (PET) performed in 35 patients. This effect is detectable even after the first lipid apheresis session (H.E.L.P. procedure), documented in 12 patients.Lipid apheresis appears to be the most effective procedure in the treatment of elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. A chosen group of nine patients with selective elevated Lp(a) illustrated both the influence on endothelial dysfunction, in the shape of sharply increased minimum coronary resistance, and the reduction through lipid apheresis, indicating that Lp(a) seems to exert a similar effect on the vascular wall and vascular function as LDL cholesterol.

During the last decades, LDL-apheresis was established as an extracorporeal treatment option for patients with severe heterozygous or homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) that is resistant to conventional treatment strategies such as diet, drugs, and changes in lifestyle. Nearly half a century ago, the first LDL-apheresis treatment was performed by plasma exchange in a child with homozygous FH. At the beginning of the 1970s, the clinical advantage of regular extracorporeal LDL-elimination was demonstrated in siblings suffering from homozygous FH. These findings encouraged researchers especially from Germany and Japan to develop extracorporeal devices to selectively eliminate LDL-cholesterol in the 1980s. Although the selectivity of the currently available LDL-apheresis devices is different, the efficacy of LDL-elimination during a single treatment is rather similar and ranges between 55 and 65 % of the pretreatment LDL plasma concentration.In the 1990s, the patients regularly treated by extracorporeal LDL-elimination, diet, and drugs were included in regression studies assessed by angiography. It was shown that the combined treatment with LDL-apheresis, diet, and drugs resulted in less progression of coronary lesions than drugs and/or diet alone. However, although a tendency was evident, results did not reach criteria for significance. During the last decade, apheresis registries were established to collect data on efficiency, safety, and clinical outcome of regular long-term LDL-apheresis. The evaluation of registry data will certainly permit further insights in the therapeutic benefit of this expensive and time-consuming therapeutic approach. Furthermore, the future of LDL-apheresis will depend upon the availability of highly efficient new drugs and molecular genetic approaches such as RNA silencing of the apoB gene, whereas the liver transplantation and gene therapy of the LDL-receptor deficiency will not replace LDL-apheresis in severe familial hypercholesterolemia in the near future.

Background: One of the first investigations concerning extracorporeal treatment of hypercholesterolemia was performed in 1967 by plasma exchange in patients with homozygous or severe heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In the following decades, several specific lipid apheresis systems were developed to efficiently eliminate low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and Lp(a) cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic patients. In the early 1980s, the main clinical indication has been homozygous FH including mainly children and pregnant women. In consideration of the current development of lipid-lowering regimens and scientific knowledge of preventing progression of cardiovascular diseases, the spectrum of indications to initiate lipid apheresis was extended due to still insufficient lipid-lowering therapy in some clinical cases. However, a generally accepted indication for lipid apheresis treatment is still under discussion. In Germany, the target-oriented distribution of increasingly limited healthcare resources demand data which support the benefit of established treatment procedures such as lipid apheresis. In recent years, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), a paramount decision-making body of the German Healthcare System, issued to reassess the approval of chronic lipid apheresis therapy for regular reimbursement. Therefore, in 2005, an interdisciplinary German Apheresis Working Group has been established by members of both the German societies of nephrology. One of the first goals of this working group was a revision of the indications for lipid apheresis corresponding to current guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of lipid disorders. In addition, recently new pathophysiological perceptions of the impact of lipoproteins on atherogenesis and thrombosis were also considered.

Methods and results: Since 2005, the working group met on a regular basis to substantiate the first defined goals. The indications for lipid apheresis were critically revised with respect to actual results from clinical investigations, cardiovascular guidelines, and scientific knowledge and were accepted by the members of the apheresis working group.

Conclusions: There is consensus between the medical societies and health insurance funds regarding the need for general accepted guidelines for lipid apheresis. Recommendations for the indications of lipid apheresis were developed, but additionally these results should be confirmed by medical societies to transform them to guidelines. However, due to limited data showing that lipid apheresis has effects on the progression of cardiovascular diseases all members of the apheresis working group support a project for creating a lipid apheresis registry. This apheresis registry has been developed and recently started. The primary goal is to substantiate prospective long-term data on clinical outcome of chronic lipid apheresis treatment and to suppo

Objective: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder caused by mutations in the low density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) gene. FH is characterized by elevated plasma LDL cholesterol, premature atherosclerosis, and a high risk of premature myocardial infarction. In general, mutations within LDLR gene can cause five different classes of defects, namely: class I defect: no LDLR synthesis; class II defect: no LDLR transport; class III defect: no low density lipoprotein (LDL) to LDLR binding; class IV defect: no LDLR/LDL internalization; and class V defect: no LDLR recycling. One might expect that both the class of LDLR defect as well as the precise mutation influences the severity of hypercholesterolemia on one hand and the response on drug treatment on the other. To clarify this question we studied the effect of the LDLR mutation p.W556R in two heterozygote subjects.

Results: We found that two heterozygote FH patients with the LDLR mutation p.W556R causing a class II LDLR defect (transport defective LDLR) respond exceedingly well to the treatment with simvastatin 40 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg. There was a LDL cholesterol decrease of 55 and 64%, respectively. In contrast, two affected homozygote p.W556R FH patients, in the mean time undergoing LDL apheresis, had no response to statin but a 15% LDL cholesterol decrease on ezetimibe monotherapy.

Conclusions: The LDLR mutation p.W556R is a frequent and severe class II defect for FH. The affected homozygote FH patients have a total loss of the functional LDLR and-as expected-do not respond on statin therapy and require LDL apheresis. In contrast, heterozygote FH patients with the same LDLR defect respond exceedingly well to standard lipid-lowering therapy, illustrating that the knowledge of the primary LDLR defect enables us to foresee the expected drug effects.

Rapid advancement of multidetector head computed tomography (MDCT) during the past 10 years has facilitated noninvasive evaluation of CAD (coronary artery disease). Since the introduction of 320-row technology, examination of the whole heart in a single heart beat with diagnostic quality has become feasible. Direct imaging of vessel morphology, a high sensitivity for CAD above 96%, and low requirements of patient compliance represent advantages over other imaging modalities, such as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), scintigraphy, and echocardiography. In some cases radiation exposure can be reduced to an effective dose below 1 mSV.Current data suggest that cardiac CT represents a more effective diagnostic tool than treadmill testing in order to decide whether cardiac catheterization is indicated. Treadmill testing has been an integral procedure of cardiac examinations for decades, although sensitivity for detecting CAD is as low as 70%.Cardiac CT represents a rather new modality and is almost exclusively performed in diagnostic imaging centers. Innovative concepts in the evaluation of CAD including CT are expected. Some authors propose cardiac CT as a major diagnostic tool for the exclusion of CAD. MRI, scintigraphy, or echocardiography in combination with a stress test remain important procedures in order to evaluate the hemodynamic relevance of coronary artery stenosis. Treadmill testing prior to cardiac CT has become questionable.The future role of cardiac CT in CAD in "change of management" concepts is promising. In order to optimize decisions of patient management on the basis of a cardiac CT examinations, awareness of current data is mandatory for the referring clinician and the performing radiological department.