OBJECTIVE:
Uncontrolled inflammatory responses could contribute to the pathogenesis of many leading causes of human morbidity and mortality. Aspirin is an anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic drug that is used in the primary and secondary protection in atherothrombotic diseases and complications. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of aspirin resistance on the extent and severity of atherosclerosis.
METHODS:
One hundred patients who underwent coronary angiography with suspected or known coronary artery disease and were using aspirin were enrolled in the study.
RESULTS:
Of these 100 patients, 30 (8 female and 22 male) formed the aspirin-resistant group (ARG), and 70 (22 female and 48 male) formed the control group. Gensini scoring system (GSS) was significantly higher in the ARG than in the control group (80.5 (36–166) vs. 45 (2–209); p<0.001). The number of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients was significantly higher in the ARG (13 of 30 (43.3%) ARG vs. 13 of 70 (18.6%) control group; p=0.01). Furthermore, when we evaluate the 16 reintervention patients, stent restenosis was significantly higher in the ARG (11 of 16 (68.75%) ARG vs. 5 of 16 (31.25%) control group; p=0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that GSS (p=0.038; 95% CI: 1.001–1.026) and PCI history (p=0.017; 95% CI: 1.182–89.804) were independent risk factors for aspirin resistance.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, atherosclerotic burden as calculated by the GSS is significantly higher in aspirin-resistant patients. According to this result, we suggest that aspirin treatment can be prescribed in higher doses in aspirin resistance patients with coronary events. Furthermore, GSS and PCI history could be independent predictors of aspirin resistance.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement have been the treatment options for mitral stenosis for several years, however, studies that compare these two modalities are very rare in the literature.ObjectIve: In this article, we aim to investigate the comparison of clinical results of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement.Methods: 527 patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, treated with percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty or mitral valve replacement (276 patients with percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and 251 patients with mitral valve replacement) from 1991 to 2012 were evaluated.The demographic characteristics, clinical, echocardiographic and catheterization data of patients were evaluated retrospectively. The results of early and late clinical follow-up of patients after percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement were also evaluated.Results: The mean follow-up time of the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group was 4.7 years and, for the mitral valve replacement-group, it was 5.45 years. The hospital stay of the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group was shorter than that of the mitral valve replacement group (2.02 days vs 10.62 days, p<0.001). The hospital mortality rate of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement were 0% and 2% respectively (p=0.024). In the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group, early postprocedural success rate was 92.1%. The event-free survival of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement was found to be similar. While reintervention was higher in percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty-group (p<0.001), mortality rate was higher in mitral valve replacement-group (p<0.001).ConclusIon: Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty seems to be more advantageous than mitral valve replacement due to low mortality rates, easy application of the procedure and no need for general anesthesia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.