4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

C-reactive protein predicts severity, progression, and prognosis of asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages 713-718

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.04.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background C-Reactive protein (CRP) has been shown to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis progression. The aim of this study was to assess whether CRP predicts severity, progression, and prognosis of aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods One hundred and thirty-five patients with asymptomatic AS were studied. Patients were diagnosed as mild (n = 18, aortic valve area [AVA] >= 1.5 cm(2)), moderate (n = 57, AVA 1.0-1.49 cm(2)), or severe AS (n = 60, AVA < 1.0 cm(2)) by Doppler echocardiography. Patients with serial (baseline and at 1 year) echocardiographic examination (n = 47) were grouped as either slow (n = 22, Delta AVA <-0.15 cm(2)/y) or rapid progression group (n = 25, Delta AVA >=-0.15 cm(2)/y). In addition, long-term prognosis was compared between patients with low CRP (n = 68, CRP < 0.15 mg/dL) and those with high CRP (n = 67, CRP >= 0.15 mg/dL). Results Baseline CRP was significantly higher in patients with severe AS than in those with mild or moderate AS (mild AS 0.17 +/- 0.43, moderate AS 0.22 +/- 0.28, severe AS 0.53 +/- 0.66 mg/dL, P = .001). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, CRP was an independent predictor of severe AS (odds ratio 3.51, P = .015). Similarly, CRP was significantly higher in the rapid progression group than in the slow progression group (0.56 +/- 0.76 vs 0.19 +/- 0.25 mg/dL, P = .004). Furthermore, long-term survival was significantly lower in the high CRP group than in the low CRP group (log rank: P < .001). Conclusion C-Reactive protein predicts severity, progression, and prognosis in patients with asymptomatic AS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available