AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/147Copyright
*Corresponding Author: Ezra A Amsterdam, 4860 Y Street, Ellison Building, Suite 2820, Sacramento, CA 95817
Citation: Rakhee Makhija., Sandhya Venugopal., Nene Takahashi., Mrudula Guthikonda., Lavanya Manda., et al., (2021) Progression of Aortic Stenosis and Long-term Follow-Up in Women. J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 4(8); Doi:10.31579/2641-0419/147
Copyright: © 2021 Ezra A Amsterdam, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 26 February 2021 | Accepted: 19 April 2021 | Published: 26 April 2021
Keywords: aortic stenosis in women; aortic stenosis progression; valvular heart disease; aortic stenosis prognosis
Data on the rate of progression of aortic stenosis (AS) in women are limited. We retrospectively studied 95 female patients (age 75 ± 13 yrs) with aortic valve area (AVA) <2.0 cm2 (mild AS 1.5-1.9 cm2, moderate AS 1.0-1.4 cm2, severe AS <1.0 cm2). All patients underwent serial transthoracic echocardiography. We determined annual AVA decrease (rate of AS progression) by 3 approaches, each of which was applied to the entire cohort: 1) as a single group; 2) in the 3 subgroups of mild, moderate and severe AS; and 3) in the rapid and slower progressors. Study endpoints were aortic valve replacement (AVR) and all-cause mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.5 ± 2.9 years. Mean rate of reduction in AVA for the total study group was 0.14 ± 0.16 cm2/yr and was directly related to presence of hypertension and baseline AVA, and inversely related to follow-up duration (all p<0.05). The annualized decrease in AVA for each of the subgroups of mild, moderate and severe AS at baseline was 0.21±0.31 cm2, 0.13±0.11 cm2, 0.11±0.09 cm2, respectively (p<0.0001). Rapid progression of AS (decrease in AVA ≥0.20 cm2/yr) occurred in 21% of patients (n=20) and was associated with baseline hypertension (p=0.03) and inversely related to follow-up duration (p=0.0007). Rapid progressors had shorter follow-up than slower progressors (20 vs. 42 mos, p=0.002). Event-free survival with end-points of death (n=65) or surgical/transcatheter AVR (n=24) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, was 93%, 66% and 40% for mild AS; 96%, 72% and 48% for moderate AS; and 93%, 38% and 24% for severe AS. Thus, event-free survival at 5 years in patients with baseline severe AS was approximately half that of patients with AS of mild or moderate severity. In addition, event-free survival at 1 year in slower progressors was 92% and in rapid progressors was 70%.
Running head: Aortic stenosis in women
Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in developed countries, affecting 2-7% of persons >65 years old [1]. Many of the factors associated with development of AS parallel those for atherosclerotic vascular disease [2]. However, there is a paucity of data on the relation of these and other factors to progression of AS specifically in women because, with few exceptions, women have been studied in mixed gender populations [3-14]. Rate of progression of AS is an essential aspect of patient management, especially in terms of valve replacement [2-8]. Our study aimed to determine: rate of progression of AS in women; its relation to mild, moderate and severe baseline AS: and the prevalence of those with rapid AS progression. Study endpoints were mortality and aortic valve replacement (AVR).
We queried the echocardiographic database of the University of California, Davis, Medical Center, to identify consecutive female patients with at least 2 transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE) at ≥3-month intervals and aortic valve area (AVA) <0.20 cm2 at study entry. Patients were followed during the interval from 2002 to 2017. Clinical data were obtained from patients’ electronic medical records including age, coronary artery disease (history of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization), diabetes, hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg [15]), dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease and smoking. Laboratory data included basic serum chemistries, hemoglobin A1c and lipid panel.
Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed with standard techniques according to the American Society of Echocardiography guidelines [16-18]. Left ventricular outflow tract diameter and gradient were measured in the parasternal long axis view with pulsed Doppler flow. The peak systolic transaortic valve jet velocity was determined from the continuous Doppler flow velocity signal across the aortic valve in apical views and the peak and mean aortic valve systolic gradients were calculated from the modified Bernoulli equation. AVA was determined from the continuity equation [19]. The degree of aortic valve calcification was estimated semi-quantitively from parasternal short axis views and recorded as mild (isolated, small spots), moderate (multiple larger spots), and severe (extensive thickening and calcification of all 3 aortic valve leaflets) [6]. Left ventricular ejection fraction was calculated by the apical biplane method of disks. The degree of AS was classified according to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines into mild (AVA 1.5-1.9 cm2), moderate (AVA 1.0–1.5 cm2) and severe AS (AVA <1.0 cm2) [20]. AS progression in each patient was measured as annual change in AVA (cm2/yr) during the interval from the TTE at study entry to the most recent follow-up TTE (total change in AVA divided by follow-up interval [years]). For additional analyses, patients were divided into rapid progressors (annual AVA decrease of ≥0.20 cm2/yr) and slower progressors (annual AVA decrease of <0.20 cm2/yr) [21]. Data on AVR and all-cause mortality were obtained from patients’ electronic medical records.
Statistical tests were performed with Stata 13.0 MP (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Continuous data are presented as mean ± SD and range or percent and their differences were tested by unpaired t-test. Categorical data were compared with X2 test. Reverse step-wise multiple regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors of AVA reduction. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of rapid AS progressors. A difference of p<0.05 was considered significant. Event-free survival was depicted by Kaplan-Meier curves according to AS severity and rapidity of progression with log-rank test to compare differences between groups.
The clinical characteristics of the study group are shown in Table 1. Average age of the patients was 75 years and included a wide range. Follow-up interval was more than 4.5 years. A majority of the women fulfilled criteria for moderate baseline AS and almost one-third had severe AS. More than half of thepatients had ≥2 cardiac risk factors, the most common of which was hypertension; almost half of the patients had coronary artery disease and one-third were current smokers (Table 1).
Number of TTEs per patient was approximately 3 and the average interval between any 2 TTEs was 10 months. The baseline AVA for the entire cohort was 1.2 cm2 and average left ventricular ejection fraction was normal (Table 1). Average rate of decrease in AVA for the total cohort was approximately 0.14 cm2/yr. Annualized decrease in AVA for each of the 3 AS subgroups was greatest in patients with mild baseline AS (0.21 cm2/yr and less in patients with moderate (0.13 cm2/yr) and severe AS (0.11/cm2/yr) (p<0.001). About half of our patients had severe calcification and thickening of all 3 aortic valve leaflets (Table 1).
Progression to severe AS occurred in 26% of patients with initially mild baseline AS and in 66% with initially moderate AS. Factors that univariately correlated to annualized decrease in AVA were hypertension and follow-up duration (both p<0.05) (Table 2).
The latter factors were independently associated with AS progression. There was no correlation of age, coronary artery disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, current smoking, chronic kidney disease or aortic valve calcification with AS progression.
Patients with rapid AS progression (decrease in AVA≥0.20 cm2/yr) comprised approximately one-fifth of our cohort of 95 patients. Average decrease in AVA was >0.30 cm2/yr for rapid progressors and approximately one-fourth this rate (0.08 cm2/yr) in the slower progressors. Compared to slower progressors, the rapid progressors had more frequent hypertension, larger baseline AVA and shorter follow-up (all p<0.05) (Table 3).
Results of logistic regression analysis depicting factors affecting rapid progression is shown in (Table 4).
Follow-up interval exceeded 4 years and included >90% of patients (n=89). In the total group of 95 patients, mortality was 68% (n = 65), 25% (n=24) received AVR and 6% (n = 6) were lost to follow-up. The annual average rate of AVR was 5%. Event-free survival with end-points of death (n=65) or surgical/transcatheter AVR (n=24) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, was 93%, 66% and 40% for mild AS; 96%, 72% and 48% for moderate AS; and 93%, 38% and 24% for severe AS. Follow-up duration differed significantly between those with mild and severe AS (p=0.04) (Figure 1a). Among rapid progressors, mortality was 75%, and 25% of patients underwent AVR. In the slower progressors, 68% died and 25% received AVR. Event-free survival at 1 year in slower progressors was 92% and in rapid progressors was 70%. (Figure 1b).
This study extends our understanding of AS progression and clinical outcomes in women. First, it enhances prior limited data on this disease and its related factors in females [22]; second, it includes one of the largest of the few AS cohorts limited to women; and third, the follow-up interval is among the longest in women with AS. Importantly, we found no prior studies that reported incidence of AVR specifically in women.
Our results show that the rate of AS progression in women was similar to previously reported findings in major studies of mixed sex cohorts [2,3,5,6]. However, most of the latter investigations included a majority of men with no delineation of the sexes, precluding assessment of AS progression specifically in women. Additionally, many of these studies involved smaller follow-up intervals for assessment of progression than our study [2-7, 10,12,13,23]. Further, our findings indicate that rapid AS progression was directly associated with hypertension and baseline AVA and inversely related to follow-up duration. Our results reveal that event-free survival at 5 years, including AVR and mortality, were significantly more favorable in women with mild and moderate baseline AS than in those with severe AS.
Our data revealed an average annual decrease in AVA of 0.14 cm2 (0.09 to 0.21) during a follow-up of 4.5 years in 95 females. The annualized decrease in AVA for each of the 3 AS subgroups was greatest in patients with mild AS. Although prior studies reveal a wide range of AS progression in mixed sex cohorts, our findings in women are consistent with the predominant results of studies with rates of 0.11 to 0.14 cm2/yr [2,3,5,6]. However, some reports of AS progression in women noted rates as low as 0.044 and 0.08 cm2/yr [22]. Rapid AS progression, defined as ≥0.20 cm2/yr [21], occurred in 20 (21%) of our patients and was associated with a higher prevalence of hypertension and larger baseline AVA compared to their frequencies in the slower progressors.
In our patients, AS progression independently correlated with hypertension. Prior studies of mixed sex cohorts have been inconsistent regarding this relationship. Aronow and co-workers [32] found that hypertension (systolic ³140 mm Hg) was positively associated with AS progression in all patients with mild baseline AS in a 2-year follow-up. By contrast in our cohort of mild, moderate and severe AS, follow-up was more than twice as long as that of Aronow et al. Other studies reported no correlation between hypertension and AS progression [11,33] but one did note that hypertension was associated with increased mortality in patients with AS, especially in women [11].
As anticipated, the follow-up interval to AVR or mortality was considerably shorter in our patients with rapid progression than in the slower progressors (20 vs 42 mos, p<0.002). Unlike several previous observational studies of mixed gender, we did not find an association between AS progression and age [34,35], smoking [24,32], chronic kidney disease [13,14,24], diabetes mellitus [32] or dyslipidemia [36,37] (Table 3), which may be related to the size of our cohort. We found that AS progressed more rapidly in patients with mild than severe baseline AVA: 0.21 vs. 0.11 cm2/yr. Bahler et al [13] also identified baseline AVA as an independent predictor of rapid AS progression, which they defined as ≥0.10 cm2/yr. However, their study was shorter (1.8 yrs) and smaller (61 women) than ours.
Studies of long-term mortality and AVR specifically in women are few. In gender-mixed populations the annual rate of surgical AVR has varied widely [3,7,11,34,38] from 4% to 25% in follow-up studies of <1 year [11] to >5.0 years [38]of follow-up. In our patients with AS varying from mild to severe, the annual rate of AVR was 5%. In one investigation, a relatively high rate of AVR at 1 year (~25%) is likely accounted for by variables such as baseline severity of AS, rapidity of progression and symptoms [11]. The annual AVR of 10% reported by Pellikka et al [38]in 622 male and female patients was closer to ours (5%) as was that of Rosenhek et al. in 176 mixed sex patients (4%) [7].
Reports of mortality related specifically to AS in women are discordant. Of the 2 extended follow-up studies in women with AS, one for 5.4 yrs, reported that all-cause mortality was 31% lower in women than men [38] while the other, in which patients were observed for 3.2 yrs, detected no mortality, but the rate of AS-related events was almost twice as high in women than men[22]. Annual all-cause mortality in our total cohort was 15% and was highest in those with baseline severe AS (Figure 1a). To our knowledge, mortality in women with AS has not been previously addressed in terms of graded severity of baseline disease. By contrast, in mixed gender studies of AS, annual all-cause mortality has varied widely [3,7,11,34,38] although rates in the most commonly cited studies are 2-4% [3,7]. The differences between mortality in the latter studies are again likely related to multiple factors contributing to this endpoint. In this regard, Rosenhek et al [7] studied patients with mild and moderate AS, while our cohort included those with severe reduction in AVA. Additionally, the cohort of Otto et al. was approximately a decade younger than our patients [3].
Our study has several limitations. It is a single center retrospective investigation with the inherent limitations of this method. However, it adds information on an important subject with previously limited evidence. The study cohort is not large enough to exclude all factors that may influence AS progression, but we have assessed multiple potential variables. Our study did not include a control group of males but prior investigations are predominantly of males. Our results are based on changes in aortic valve area rather than gradients, although multiple measures of AS based on gradients and velocity have been published. The clinical outcomes and frequency of AVR reflect results from the pre-TAVR era but our data on rates of AS progression and rapid progression are relevant to contemporary management. Our cohort is limited in size number but it compares favorably in this regard with prior investigations of AS in women, and our follow-duration is longer than most studies in women. We did not find a relationship between diabetes and renal failure with AS progression, unlike other larger mixed sex studies, as ours is a smaller investigation and underpowered to determine predictors.
This study extends limited data on aortic stenosis in women by reporting average rate of progression of this lesion and associated factors, relation of aortic stenosis to severity of this disease, and identification of rapid and slower aortic stenosis progressors.
Acknowledgement: The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number UL1 TR001860. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Funding source(s): none
All authors contributed to the production and analysis of the data, had acquisition to the data and contributed to production of the manuscript
Declarations of interest: none
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
