Mitral valve plasty in systemic lupus erythematosus in the setting of antiphospholipid syndrome

2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 391-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Yoshida ◽  
Yoshikado Sasako ◽  
Junjiro Kobayashi ◽  
Kenji Minatoya ◽  
Ko Bando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Mitral Valve Plasty

scholarly journals Isolated Tricuspid Valve Libman-Sacks Endocarditis in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus with Secondary Antiphospholipid Syndrome

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Unic ◽  
Mislav Planinc ◽  
Davor Baric ◽  
Igor Rudez ◽  
Robert Blazekovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Tricuspid Valve ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Tricuspid Regurgitation ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Rare Case ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Valvular Disease ◽  
Systemic Lupus

Libman-Sacks endocarditis, one of the most prevalent cardiac presentations of systemic lupus erythematosus, typically affects the aortic or mitral valve; tricuspid valve involvement is highly unusual. Secondary antiphospholipid syndrome increases the frequency and severity of cardiac valvular disease in systemic lupus erythematosus. We present the case of a 47-year-old woman with lupus and antiphospholipid syndrome whose massive tricuspid regurgitation was caused by Libman-Sacks endocarditis isolated to the tricuspid valve. In addition, we discuss this rare case in the context of the relevant medical literature.

Libman-Sacks Endocarditis Due to Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activation After Mitral Valve Plasty

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. e109-e111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takaaki Samura ◽  
Koichi Toda ◽  
Daisuke Yoshioka ◽  
Teruya Nakamura ◽  
Shigeru Miyagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Mitral Valve Plasty

Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Clinical Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91
Author(s):  
Julia L. Riera ◽  
María del R. Maliandi ◽  
Jorge L. Musuruana ◽  
Javier A. Cavallasca
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Feature ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Bilateral Involvement

Background: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as a sudden loss of hearing, usually unilateral, of more than 30 dB in 3 contiguous frequencies of the tonal audiometry. SSNHL estimates an incidence ranging from 5 to 20 per 100.000 people per year. In approximately 75% of cases, a cause cannot be identified. However, it could be a clinical manifestation of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS). Objective: This review will focus on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of the SLE and APS associated SSNHL. Methods: We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Cochrane reviewing reports of Sudden sensorineural hearing loss in SLE and/or APS. Articles written in English and Spanish, and were available in full text, were included. Results: In patients with SLE, bilateral involvement was frequent. Antiphospholipid antibodies were positive in the majority of the patients. Corticosteroids were the mainstay of the treatment. The auditory prognosis was poor with total hearing loss recovery reached in only 22% of patients. : On the other hand, most of the patients with SSNHL and APS were males and presented associated symptoms such as vertigo, tinnitus and/or headache, 75% had bilateral disease. Lupus anticoagulant and aCL were found in equal proportions, all patients were anticoagulated, and aspirin was associated in 25% of the cases. Complete resolution or improvement of symptoms was observed in 25% of the patients. Conclusion: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss, can be a clinical feature of SLE and APS. Treating physicians should be aware of this devastating complication, especially when bilateral involvement occurs.

scholarly journals POS0706 PERFORMANCES OF DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS IN A SINGLE CENTER COHORT FROM TURKEY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 602.1-603
Author(s):  
E. S. Torun ◽  
E. Bektaş ◽  
F. Kemik ◽  
M. Bektaş ◽  
C. Cetin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Sjogren's Syndrome ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Acr Criteria

Background:Recently developed EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have important differences compared to the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) SLE classification criteria and the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria: The obligatory entry criterion of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity is introduced and a “weighted” approach is used1. Sensitivity and specificity of these three criteria have been debated and may vary in different populations and clinical settings.Objectives:We aim to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls from a reference center with dedicated clinics for SLE and other autoimmune/inflammatory connective tissue diseases from Turkey.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of SLE patients and diseased controls for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analysed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients for both SLE patients and diseased controls. SLE patients that did not fulfil 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and diseased controls that fulfilled these criteria were evaluated.Results:A total of 392 SLE patients and 294 non-SLE diseased controls (48 undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 51 Sjögren’s syndrome, 43 idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, 50 systemic sclerosis, 52 primary antiphospholipid syndrome, 15 rheumatoid arthritis, 15 psoriatic arthritis and 20 ANCA associated vasculitis) were included into the study. Hundred and fourteen patients (16.6%) were ANA negative.Sensitivity was more than 90% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and positive predictive value was more than 90% for all three criteria (Table 1). Specificity was the highest for 1997 ACR criteria. Negative predictive value was 76.9% for ACR criteria, 88.4% for SLICC criteria and 91.7% for EULAR/ACR criteria.In only ANA positive patients, sensitivity was 79.6% for 1997 ACR criteria, 92.2% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 96.1% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Specificity was 92.6% for ACR criteria, 87.8% for SLICC criteria 85.2% for EULAR/ACR criteria.Eleven clinically diagnosed SLE patients had insufficient number of items for both 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Both criteria were fulfilled by 16 diseased controls: 9 with Sjögren’s syndrome, 5 with antiphospholipid syndrome, one with dermatomyositis and one with systemic sclerosis.Table 1.Sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteriaSLE (+)SLE (-)Sensitivity (%)Positive Predictive Value (%)Specificity (%)Negative Predictive Value (%)1997 ACR(+) 308(-) 841527978.695.494.976.92012 SLICC(+) 357(-) 352626891.193.291.288.42019 EULAR/ACR(+) 368(-) 242826693.892.990.591.7Conclusion:In this cohort, although all three criteria have sufficient specificity, sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR criteria are the lowest. Overall, 2019 EULAR/ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria have a comparable performance, but if only ANA positive cases and controls are analysed, the specificity of both criteria decrease to less than 90%. Some SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis lacked sufficient number of criteria. Mostly, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome are prone to misclassification by both recent criteria.References:[1]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151-1159.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals POS0712 “EXTRA”- CRITERIA ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES IN PATIENTS WITH ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID SYNDROME AND SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (PRELIMINARY DATA)

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 605.2-606
Author(s):  
F. Cheldieva ◽  
T. Reshetnyak ◽  
M. Cherkasova ◽  
N. Seredavkina ◽  
A. Lila
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Preliminary Data ◽  
Antiphospholipid Antibodies ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
Past History ◽  
Igg Antibodies ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Pregnancy Morbidity

Background:The study of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), not included in the Sydney diagnostic criteria, in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is poorly understood.Objectives:To determine the frequency of detection of IgA-aCL and IgA-aβ2GP1 and IgG antibodies to β2GP1 domain 1 (IgG-aβ2GP1-D1) in patients with APS with and without SLE.Methods:ELISA and chemiluminescence assays (CMA) were used to test 63 sera of patients: 22 (35%) with primary APS (pAPS) and 41 (65%) patients with APS and with SLE (secondary APS (sAPS)), with mean age 38,0 [33,0 – 43,0] years and disease duration 4,0 [0,1 – 9,9]. Both methods were used to test of IgG/IgM-aCL and IgG/IgM-aβ2GP1. CMA was used for research IgG/IgM/IgA-aCL, IgG/IgM/IgA-aβ2GPI and IgG-aβ2GP1-D1. Of them 49 (78%) (18 – with pAPS; 31 – with sAPS) displayed major thrombotic events and 18 of 22 pregnant women had pregnancy morbidity in past history. Lupus anticoagulant (LA) positivity was in 9 out of 12 patients who had it determined. LA was not investigated due to anticoagulant therapy in the remaining 52 patients.Results:IgG/IgM-aCL and IgG/IgM-aß2GP1 were recorded in 44/18 and 50/17 patients by ELISA and in 55/19 and 59/16 by CMA, respectively.IgA-aCL positivity was found in 35 (56%) of 63 patients. Thirty IgA-positive patients were positive for IgG-aCL by ELISA: 22 – IgG-aCL – highly positive, 6 – medium positive and 2 – low positive patients. IgM-aCL by ELISA was detected in 13 (37%) of 35 IgA-aCL positive patients: 11 – highly positive, 1 – medium positive and 1 – low positive. IgA-aCL was combined with IgG-aCL in 34 patients and with IgM-aCL in 16 patients in the CMA. IgG-aß2GP1 in ELISA was detected in 32 patients with IgA-aCL (24 –highly positive, 5 – medium positive and 3 – low positive) and in 34 – in CMA. IgM-aß2GP1 was combined with IgA-aß2GP1 with the same frequency in both methods (in 13 patients).IgA-aß2GP1 was detected in 30 (48%) of 63 patients. They were combined with both IgG-aCL and IgG-aß2GP1 in all cases in both methods. IgM-aCL and IgM-aß2GP1 were detected in 14 and 11 of 30 patients with IgA-aß2GP1, respectively. The combination of IgA-aß2GP1 with IgG-aCL by ELISA was in 27 (in most cases highly positive – 20) and with IgM-aCL – in 10 (highly positive - 8). IgG-aß2GP1 was detected in 28 patients with IgA-aß2GP1 (high positive – 21) and in 11 patients with IgM-aß2GP1 (high positive –7).IgG-aß2GP1-D1 was revealed in 48 (76%) patients. It was combined with IgG-aCL – in 38, with IgM-aCL – in 15 patients by the ELISA. The combination of IgG-aß2GP1-D1 by CMA was as follows: with IgG-aCL – in 46, with IgM-aCL – in 17, and with IgA-aCL – in 33 patients. In most cases, IgG-aß2gp1-D1 was combined with highly positive aCL levels. IgG-aß2GP1-D1 positivity was associated with IgG-aß2GP1 positivity in 42 – by ELISA and 47 – by CMA, IgМ-aβ2GP1 – in 13 and 14 patients by ELISA and CMA, respectively, and IgA-aß2GP1 – in 29. Isolated IgG-aß2GP1-D1 positivity was not observed.Conclusion:The frequency of IgA-aCL detection was 56% (35 patients out of 63), IgA-aβ2GP1 – 48% (30 patients out of 63), IgG-aβ2GP1-D1 – 76% (48 patients out of 63). There was not isolated positivity of this “extra” criterial antibodies. The presence of IgA-aCL, IgA-aβ2GP1, IgG-aβ2GP1-D1 was associated with highly positivity of IgG/IgM-aCL and IgG/IgM- aβ2GP1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document