Cited by 1,146Cardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

A Randomized Trial of Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Calcific Aortic Stenosis

Open access
Cowell, S. Joanna, Newby, David E., Prescott, Robin J., Bloomfield, Peter, Reid, John, Northridge, David B., Boon, Nicholas A.·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Calcific aortic stenosis has many characteristics in common with atherosclerosis, including hypercholesterolemia. We hypothesized that intensive lipid-lowering therapy would halt the progression of calcific aortic stenosis or induce its regression. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to receive either 80 mg of atorvastatin daily or a matched placebo. Aortic-valve stenosis and calcification were assessed with the use of Doppler echocardiography and helical computed tomography, respectively. The primary end points were change in aortic-jet velocity and aortic-valve calcium score. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were assigned to atorvastatin and 78 to placebo, with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 7 to 36). Serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations remained at 130+/-30 mg per deciliter in the placebo group and fell to 63+/-23 mg per deciliter in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001). Increases in aortic-jet velocity were 0.199+/-0.210 m per second per year in the atorvastatin group and 0.203+/-0.208 m per second per year in the placebo group (P=0.95; adjusted mean difference, 0.002; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.066 to 0.070 m per second per year). Progression in valvular calcification was 22.3+/-21.0 percent per year in the atorvastatin group, and 21.7+/-19.8 percent per year in the placebo group (P=0.93; ratio of post-treatment aortic-valve calcium score, 0.998; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.947 to 1.050). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive lipid-lowering therapy does not halt the progression of calcific aortic stenosis or induce its regression. This study cannot exclude a small reduction in the rate of disease progression or a significant reduction in major clinical end points. Long-term, large-scale, randomized, controlled trials are needed to establish the role of statin therapy in patients with calcific aortic stenosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa043876

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomized trials have shown no effect of statins on haemodynamic progression or aortic stenosis-related clinical events.

    “several randomized trials showed no effect of statins on haemodynamic progression or AS-related clinical events152–154.”

    From Calcific aortic stenosis (2016) · cites this paper as [152]

    The disease-progression results report no effect of atorvastatin on aortic-jet velocity, supporting the haemodynamic part of the claim. The adverse-events discussion says there was no demonstrable effect on clinical endpoints, but the trial was not powered to assess them and could not rule out a significant reduction; stating that it showed no effect on AS-related clinical events is too definitive. This paper reports one trial, not the results of the several trials cited in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Three randomized clinical trials failed to show significant benefit of LDL lowering with statins on AS progression.

    “However, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) failed to demonstrate any significant benefit of LDL lowering with statins on the progression of AS152–154.”

    From Calcific aortic stenosis (2016) · cites this paper as [152]

  • Several intervention studies tested whether lipid lowering with statins would slow aortic stenosis progression, but the results were generally disappointing.

    “Several intervention studies have been performed to test the hypothesis that lipid lowering with statin medications would slow the progression of AS, however the results were generally disappointing152–154.”

    From Calcific aortic stenosis (2016) · cites this paper as [152]

  • Randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of statin therapy on retarding CAVS disease progression.

    “randomized controlled trials (RCTs) failed to demonstrate any benefit of statin therapy on retard disease progression6–8.”
  • Several clinical trials evaluating statin therapy in mild to moderate aortic stenosis failed to demonstrate efficacy in lipid lowering as a strategy to mitigate adverse events.

    “Several clinical trials evaluating statin therapy in mild to moderate AS failed to demonstrate efficacy in lipid lowering as a strategy to mitigate adverse events in the disease39–41.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]6. Mautner GC, Roberts WC. Reported fre- quency of coronary arterial narrowing by an- giogram in patients with valvular aortic ste- nosis. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:539-40.
  2. [26]26. Shavelle DM, Takasu J, Budoff MJ, Mao S, Zhao XQ, O'Brien KD. HMG CoA reduc- tase inhibitor (statin) and aortic valve calci- um. Lancet 2002;359:1125-6.
  3. [37]37. Jones P, Kafonek S, Laurora I, Hunning- hake D. Comparative dose efficacy study of atorvastatin versus simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the CURVES study). Am J Cardiol 1998;81:582-7. [Erratum, Am J Cardiol 1998;82:128.]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowell, S. J., Newby, D. E., Prescott, R. J., Bloomfield, P., Reid, J., Northridge, D. B., & Boon, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Borders General Hospital (GB)
  • Western General Hospital (GB)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-06-09
Volume
352
Issue
23
Pages
2389-2397
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2117330772
Cited by
1,146
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 55
FWCI
47.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
calcific aortic stenosis, atorvastatin, statin therapy, lipid-lowering therapy, valve calcification, disease progression, aortic jet velocity, aortic valve calcium score, LDL cholesterol, hypercholesterolemia, atherosclerosis, echocardiography, CT angiography
MeSH terms
Atorvastatin, Anticholesteremic Agents, Aortic Valve, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Blood Flow Velocity, Calcinosis, Double-Blind Method, Heptanoic Acids, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Pyrroles, Echocardiography, Doppler, Treatment Failure, Disease Progression, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review