Pathological Investigation of Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis, Compared with Atherosclerotic Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis and Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve Regurgitation

Congenital bicuspid aortic valve (CBAV) is the main cause of aortic stenosis (AS) in young adults. However, the histopathological features of AS in patients with CBAV have not been fully investigated.We examined specimens of aortic valve leaflets obtained from patients who had undergone aortic valve re/placement at our institution for severe AS with CBAV (n = 24, CBAV-AS group), severe AS with tricuspid aortic valve (n = 24, TAV-AS group), and severe aortic regurgitation (AR) with CBAV (n = 24, CBAV-AR group). We compared the histopathological features among the three groups. Pathological features were classified using semi-quantitative methods (graded on a scale 0 to 3) by experienced pathologists without knowledge of the patients' backgrounds. The severity of inflammation, neovascularization, and calcium and cholesterol deposition did not differ between the CBAV-AS and TAV-AS groups, and these four parameters were less marked in the CBAV-AR group than in the CBAV-AS (all p<0.01). Meanwhile, the grade of valvular fibrosis was greater in the CBAV-AS group, compared with the TAV-AS and CBAV-AR groups (both p<0.01). In AS patients, thickness of fibrotic lesions was greater on the aortic side than on the ventricular side (both p<0.01). Meanwhile, thickness of fibrotic lesions was comparable between the aortic and ventricular sides in CBAV-AR patients (p = 0.35).Valvular fibrosis, especially on the aortic side, was greater in patients with CBAV-AS than in those without, suggesting a difference in the pathogenesis of AS between CBAV and TAV

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3&nbsp;years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Results: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0&nbsp;years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19). Conclusions: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013

Anticoagulant selection in relation to the SAMe-TT2R2 score in patients with atrial fibrillation. the GLORIA-AF registry

Aim: The SAMe-TT2R2 score helps identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) likely to have poor anticoagulation control during anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and those with scores &gt;2 might be better managed with a target-specific oral anticoagulant (NOAC). We hypothesized that in clinical practice, VKAs may be prescribed less frequently to patients with AF and SAMe-TT2R2 scores &gt;2 than to patients with lower scores. Methods and results: We analyzed the Phase III dataset of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), a large, global, prospective global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor. We compared baseline clinical characteristics and antithrombotic prescriptions to determine the probability of the VKA prescription among anticoagulated patients with the baseline SAMe-TT2R2 score &gt;2 and ≤ 2. Among 17,465 anticoagulated patients with AF, 4,828 (27.6%) patients were prescribed VKA and 12,637 (72.4%) patients an NOAC: 11,884 (68.0%) patients had SAMe-TT2R2 scores 0-2 and 5,581 (32.0%) patients had scores &gt;2. The proportion of patients prescribed VKA was 28.0% among patients with SAMe-TT2R2 scores &gt;2 and 27.5% in those with scores ≤2. Conclusions: The lack of a clear association between the SAMe-TT2R2 score and anticoagulant selection may be attributed to the relative efficacy and safety profiles between NOACs and VKAs as well as to the absence of trial evidence that an SAMe-TT2R2-guided strategy for the selection of the type of anticoagulation in NVAF patients has an impact on clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety. The latter hypothesis is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov//Unique identifier: NCT01937377, NCT01468701, and NCT01671007

Maximização da lucratividade em produção conjunta: um caso na indústria frigorífica Maximizing the profitability in joint-production: a case in the poultry industry

O presente artigo parte do problema do cálculo de custos em indústrias de produção conjunta. Observa-se que a abordagem tradicional adotada para tratar o tema, o método do custo conjunto, apresenta limitações no que tange ao modelo adotado e aos resultados obtidos em termos da análise da lucratividade dos diferentes produtos finais. Como forma de tratar o problema apresenta-se uma abordagem alternativa baseada na Teoria das Restrições suportada por técnicas de Pesquisa Operacional. Visando mostrar as diferenças dos resultados na utilização dos dois métodos, é realizado um estudo de caso em uma unidade de abate e industrialização de aves. Os resultados obtidos, em termos da lucratividade global da operação, apresentam diferenças significativas. A abordagem da Teoria das Restrições aplicada com base na utilização de técnicas de Pesquisa Operacional demonstra-se mais eficaz do prisma da tomada de decisão.<br>This paper discusses the problem related to the costing in joint product industries. Traditional approaches to this subject present limitations regarding the analysis of the individual profitability of each final product. This problem is discussed and an alternative approach based on the Theory of Constraints, and supported by the Operational Research, is proposed. To demonstrate the differences between this new approach and the traditional one, a case study in a poultry company is presented, and the results are discussed