Diederick E. Grobbee

The ESC/EAS Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and EAS, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC and EAS is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC/EAS Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC/EAS Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC/EAS Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC/EAS Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Correction: Volume: 292 Pages: 160-162 DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.11.020 Published: JAN 2020

BACKGROUND: High plasma HDL cholesterol is associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction, but whether this association is causal is unclear. Exploiting the fact that genotypes are randomly assigned at meiosis, are independent of non-genetic confounding, and are unmodified by disease processes, mendelian randomisation can be used to test the hypothesis that the association of a plasma biomarker with disease is causal. METHODS: We performed two mendelian randomisation analyses. First, we used as an instrument a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the endothelial lipase gene (LIPG Asn396Ser) and tested this SNP in 20 studies (20 913 myocardial infarction cases, 95 407 controls). Second, we used as an instrument a genetic score consisting of 14 common SNPs that exclusively associate with HDL cholesterol and tested this score in up to 12 482 cases of myocardial infarction and 41 331 controls. As a positive control, we also tested a genetic score of 13 common SNPs exclusively associated with LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: Carriers of the LIPG 396Ser allele (2·6% frequency) had higher HDL cholesterol (0·14 mmol/L higher, p=8×10(-13)) but similar levels of other lipid and non-lipid risk factors for myocardial infarction compared with non-carriers. This difference in HDL cholesterol is expected to decrease risk of myocardial infarction by 13% (odds ratio [OR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·84-0·91). However, we noted that the 396Ser allele was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·99, 95% CI 0·88-1·11, p=0·85). From observational epidemiology, an increase of 1 SD in HDL cholesterol was associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·62, 95% CI 0·58-0·66). However, a 1 SD increase in HDL cholesterol due to genetic score was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·93, 95% CI 0·68-1·26, p=0·63). For LDL cholesterol, the estimate from observational epidemiology (a 1 SD increase in LDL cholesterol associated with OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·45-1·63) was concordant with that from genetic score (OR 2·13, 95% CI 1·69-2·69, p=2×10(-10)). INTERPRETATION: Some genetic mechanisms that raise plasma HDL cholesterol do not seem to lower risk of myocardial infarction. These data challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL cholesterol will uniformly translate into reductions in risk of myocardial infarction. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, The Wellcome Trust, European Union, British Heart Foundation, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

BACKGROUND: Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. RESULTS: The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 3.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 32.9). The combined rate of operative mortality and severe complications was 9.8 percent in the open-repair group (17 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.8 to 15.2 percent) and 4.7 percent in the endovascular-repair group (8 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 9.0 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 5.4). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the overall results of this trial, endovascular repair is preferable to open repair in patients who have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is at least 5 cm in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this advantage is sustained.