The cause and effect relationship between serum uric acid levels and hypertension can be difficult to evaluate because antihypertensive drugs sometimes affect uric acid levels. This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between serum uric acid levels and hypertension in a general, healthy Japanese population who were not receiving medication for hyperuricemia or hypertension. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 90 143 Japanese people (men, 49.1%; age, 46.3±12.0 years) undergoing an annual medical examination at St Luke's International Hospital Center for Preventive Medicine, Tokyo, between January 2004 and June 2010. Of these individuals, 82 722 (91.8%) who had never taken medications for gout, hyperuricemia or hypertension were enrolled. We compared the participant characteristics and prevalence of diastolic hypertension (⩾90 mm Hg) and/or systolic hypertension (⩾140 mm Hg) by serum uric acid quartile. The odds ratio (OR) of hypertension was 1.20 for each 1 mg dl(-1) increase in serum uric acid level after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Compared with the lowest serum uric acid quartile, participants in the highest quartile had a 3.7-fold higher OR for hypertension. After adjustment for age, BMI, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking and eGFR, these ORs were 1.79 (1.62-1.98) in the total study population, 1.58 (1.44-1.75) in men and 1.60 (1.39-1.84) in women. The results were similar for both systolic and diastolic hypertension. Elevated serum uric acid levels may be as important as obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking and reduced kidney function for the development of hypertension and should be considered in hypertension prevention programs.

No abstract

ImportanceIn patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited.ObjectiveTo report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021.InterventionPatients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years.ResultsA total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

An ageing population and increased utilisation of tissue valves in younger patients imply that the number of patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve implantation within failed bioprostheses will continue to increase. There are two major adverse events associated with aortic valve-in-valve procedures that may temper the enthusiasm for these appealing interventions. Residual stenosis is the "Achilles' heel" of aortic valve-in-valve, while coronary obstruction is an uncommon but life-threatening adverse event. Prevention of these adverse events is essential. Emerging tools and techniques enable operators to manipulate existing devices and to implant new ones inside them safely. Considering the available evidence, it seems that bioprosthetic valve ring fracture and bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) may enable some solution. Until we have prosthetic valves that are both very durable and non-thrombogenic, we can expect that techniques and tools chosen to treat failed bioprosthetic valves effectively will continue to be designed and utilised.

No abstract