BackgroundCirculating micro-RNAs have been proposed as a novel class of cardiovascular (CV) biomarkers, but whether they meet analytical requirements and provide additional information to establish risk indices have not been established. miR-210 levels are increased in subjects with low VO2 max, which is a recognized risk factor in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), and we hypothesized that circulating miR-210 levels may be increased in patients with AS and associated with a poor prognosis.MethodsWe measured circulating miR-210 levels by real-time PCR in 57 patients with moderate to severe AS and in 10 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. The merit of miR-210 as a biomarker was assessed according to established criteria, including by comparing miR-210 levels with NT-proBNP and miR-22 levels, which is another miRNA biomarker candidate.ResultsAll patients and control subjects had miR-210 levels within the range of detection (Cq<35) and the analytical variability was low. Circulating miR-210 levels were 2.0±0.2 [mean±SEM] fold increased in AS patients compared to controls (p = 0.002), whereas miR-22 levels were not differently expressed in the AS patients (0.12±0.06 fold increase, p = 0.45). The increase in miR-210 levels in AS patients was comparable to the increment in NT-proBNP levels: [AUC] 0.82 (95% CI 0.70–0.90) vs. 0.85 (0.75–0.93), respectively, p = 0.71. During a median follow-up of 1287 days, 15 patients (26%) died. There was a significant association between higher circulating levels of miR-210 and increased mortality during follow-up: hazard ratio [supra- vs. inframedian levels] 3.3 (95% CI 1.1–10.5), p = 0.039. Adjusting for other risk indices in multivariate analysis did not attenuate the prognostic merit of circulating miR-210 levels.ConclusionCirculating miR-210 levels are increased in patients with AS and provide independent prognostic information to established risk indices. Analytical characteristics were also excellent supporting the potential of micro-RNAs as novel CV biomarkers.
ObjectiveIn patients with mild to moderate operative risk, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is still the preferred treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Aiming to broaden the knowledge of postsurgical outcomes, this study reports a broad set of morbidity outcomes following surgical intervention.MethodsOur cohort comprised 442 patients referred for severe AS; 351 had undergone SAVR, with the remainder (91) not operated on. All patients were evaluated using the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), were assigned a New York Heart Association class (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society class (CCS), with additional scores for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)) and myocardial remodelling (at inclusion and at 1-year follow-up). Adverse events and mortality were recorded.ResultsThree-year survival after SAVR was 90.0%. SAVR was associated with an improved NYHA class, CCS score and HRQoL, and provoked reverse ventricular remodelling. The 6MWT decreased, while the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, non-fatal stroke/transient ischaemic attack or myocardial infarction) and all-cause hospitalisation (incidence rate per 100 patient-years) were 13.5 and 62.4, respectively. The proportion of cognitive disability measured by MMSE increased after SAVR from 3.2% to 8.8% (p=0.005). Proportion of patients living independently at home, having attained NYHA class I, was met by 49.1% at 1 year. Unoperated individuals had a poor prognosis in terms of any outcome.ConclusionThis study provides knowledge of outcomes beyond what is known about the mortality benefit after SAVR to provide insight into the morbidity burden of modern-day SAVR.
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.