Affiliations
Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology & Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Given name(s)
Daniel J.
Family name
Brotman
Degrees
MD, SFHM, FACP

Painful Losses

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/02/2017 - 19:34
Display Headline
Painful losses

A 58‐year‐old man presented to the emergency department with a 1‐month history of progressive, severe left hip pain that had become unbearable. The pain was constant and significantly worse with weight‐bearing, and the patient was now confined to bed. He denied back pain, falls, or trauma.

Although hip pain is a common complaint and a frequent manifestation of chronic degenerative joint disease, the debilitating and subacute nature of the pain suggests a potentially more serious underlying cause. Patients and even clinicians may refer to hip pain when the actual symptoms are periarticular, often presenting over the trochanter laterally, or muscular, presenting as posterior pain. The true hip joint is located in the anterior hip and groin area and often causes symptoms that radiate to the buttock. Pain can also be referred to the hip area from the spine, pelvis, or retroperitoneum, so it is crucial not to restrict the differential diagnosis to hip pathology.

Key diagnostic considerations include (1) inflammatory conditions such as trochanteric bursitis or gout; (2) bacterial infection of the hip joint, adjacent bone, or a nearby structure; (3) benign nerve compression (such as meralgia paresthetica); and (4) tumor (particularly myeloma or metastatic disease to the bone, but also potentially a pelvic or spinal mass with nerve compression). Polymyalgia rheumatica and other systemic rheumatologic complaints are a consideration, but because a single joint is involved, these conditions are less likely. The hip would be an unusual location for a first gout flare, and the duration of symptoms would be unusually long for gout. Avascular necrosis should be considered if the patient has received glucocorticoids for his previously diagnosed rheumatologic disease. If the patient is anticoagulated, consideration of spontaneous hematoma is reasonable, but usually this would present over a course of days, not weeks. The absence of trauma makes a fracture of the hip or pelvis less likely, and the insidious progression of symptoms makes a pathologic fracture less likely.

The patient reported 6 months of worsening proximal upper and lower extremity myalgia and weakness, with arthralgia of the hips and shoulders. The weakness was most notable in his proximal lower extremities, although he had remained ambulatory until the hip pain became limiting. He maintained normal use of his arms. The patient denied current rash but noted photosensitivity and a mild facial rash several months earlier. He described having transient mouth sores intermittently for several years. He denied fever, chills, night sweats, weight loss, dyspnea, recent travel, and outdoor exposures. Several months previously, he had been evaluated for these symptoms at another institution and given the diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). At that time, he had initiated treatment with weekly dosing of methotrexate and etanercept.

The patient's medical history was also notable for hypertension, Graves' disease treated previously with radioiodine ablation, quiescent ulcerative colitis, and depression. Current medications included methotrexate, etanercept, levothyroxine, enalapril, hydrochlorothiazide, fluoxetine, ibuprofen, and oxycodone‐acetaminophen. He denied tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drug use.

Weakness occurring in the proximal lower extremities is the classic distribution for polymyositis and dermatomyositis. In contrast to polymyalgia rheumatica, dermatomyositis and polymyositis do not generally feature severe muscle pain, but they can be associated with a painful polyarthritis. Oral ulcers, photosensitivity, and facial rash are consistent with SLE, but dermatomyositis can also lead to a symmetrical erythema of the eyelids (commonly referred to as a heliotrope rash, named after the flower bearing that name) and sometimes can be associated with photosensitivity. Oral ulcers, particularly the painful ones known as canker sores, are extraordinarily common in the general population, and patients and providers may miss the mucosal lesions of SLE because they are usually painless. As methotrexate and etanercept are immunosuppressive, opportunistic pathogens such as typical or atypical mycobacteria and disseminated fungal infections should be considered, with special attention to the possibility of infection in or near the left hip. Given that SLE and RA rarely coexist, it would be helpful to seek outside medical records to know what the prior serologic evaluation entailed, but it is unlikely that this presentation is a manifestation of a diffuse connective tissue process.

Physical examination should focus on the features of dermatomyositis including heliotrope rash, truncal erythema, and papules over the knuckles (Gottron's papules); objective proximal muscle weakness in the shoulder and hip girdle; and findings that might suggest antisynthetase syndrome such as hyperkeratotic mechanic hand palmar and digital changes, and interstitial crackles on lung exam. If necrotic skin lesions are found, this would raise concern for a disseminated infection. The joints should be examined for inflammation and effusions.

His temperature was 36.6C, heart rate 74 beats per minute, blood pressure 134/76 mm Hg, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and O2 saturation 97% on room air. He was obese but did not have moon facies or a buffalo hump. There were no rashes or mucosal lesions. Active and passive motion of his left hip joint elicited pain with both flexion/extension and internal/external rotation. Muscle strength was limited by pain in the left hip flexors and extenders, but was 5/5 in all other muscle groups. Palpation of the proximal muscles of his arms and legs did not elicit pain. His extremities were without edema, and examination of his shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, knees, ankles, and feet did not reveal any erythema, synovial thickening, effusion, or deformity. Examination of the heart, chest, and abdomen was normal.

Given the reassuring strength examination, the absence of rashes or skin lesions, and the reassuring joint exam aside from the left hip, a focal infectious, inflammatory, or malignant process seems most likely. The pain with range of motion of the hip does not definitively localize the pathology to the hip joint, because pathology of the nearby structures can lead to pain when the hip is moved. Laboratory evaluation should include a complete blood count to screen for evidence of infection or marrow suppression, complete metabolic panel, and creatine kinase. The history of ulcerative colitis raises the possibility of an enthesitis (inflammation of tendons or ligaments) occurring near the hip. Enthesitis is sometimes a feature of the seronegative spondyloarthropathy‐associated conditions and can occur in the absence of sacroiliitis or spondyloarthropathy.

The patient's myalgias and arthralgias had recently been evaluated in the rheumatology clinic. Laboratory evaluation from that visit was remarkable only for an antinuclear antibody (ANA) test that was positive at a titer of 1:320 in a homogeneous pattern, creatine phosphokinase 366 IU/L (normal range [NR] 38240), and alkaline phosphatase 203 IU/L (NR 30130). All of the following labs from that visit were within normal ranges: cyclic citrullinated peptide, rheumatoid factor, antidouble stranded DNA, aldolase, complement levels, serum and urine protein electrophoresis, thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid microsomal antibody, thyroid‐stimulating hormone, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (10 mm/h), and C‐reactive protein (0.3 mg/dL).

The patient was admitted to the hospital. Initial blood test results on admission included sodium 139 mEq/L, potassium 3.9 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 27 mEq/L, urea nitrogen 16 mg/dL, creatinine 0.6 mg/dL, glucose 85 mg/dL, calcium 9.2 mg/dL (NR 8.810.3), phosphate 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.74.6), albumin 4.7 g/dL (NR 3.54.9), and alkaline phosphatase 195 IU/L (NR 30130). The remainder of a comprehensive metabolic profile, complete blood count with differential, and coagulation studies were all normal.

The homogeneous ANA titer of 1:320 is high enough to raise eyebrows, but is nonspecific for lupus and other ANA‐associated rheumatologic conditions, and may be a red herring, particularly given the low likelihood of a systemic inflammatory process explaining this new focal hip pain. The alkaline phosphatase is only mildly elevated and could be of bone or liver origin. The reassuringly low inflammatory markers are potentially helpful, because if checked now and substantially increased from the prior outpatient visit, they would be suggestive of a new inflammatory process. However, this would not point to a specific cause of inflammation.

Given the focality of the symptoms, imaging is warranted. As opposed to plain films, contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be an efficient first step, because there is low suspicion for fracture and high suspicion for an inflammatory, neoplastic, or infectious process. MRI is more expensive and usually cannot be obtained as rapidly as CT. There is a chance that CT imaging alone will provide enough information to guide the next diagnostic steps, such as aspiration of an abscess or joint, or biopsy of a suspicious lesion. However, for soft tissue lesions and many bone lesions, including osteomyelitis, MRI offers better delineation of pathology.

CT scan of the left femur demonstrated a large lytic lesion in the femoral neck that contained macroscopic fat and had an aggressive appearance with significant thinning of the cortex. MRI confirmed these findings and demonstrated a nondisplaced subtrochanteric femur fracture in the proximity of the lesion (Figure 1). Contrast‐enhanced CT scans of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no other neoplastic lesions. Prostate‐specific antigen level was normal. The patient's significant hypophosphatemia persisted, with levels dropping to as low as 0.9 mg/dL despite aggressive oral phosphate replacement.

Figure 1
Coronal T1‐weighted magnetic resonance image of the femoral mass. There is a nonspecific, heterogeneous, fat‐containing lesion within the femoral neck and intertrochanteric region. The bright areas (red arrow), suppressed on short tau inversion recovery images, are consistent with fat. The nondisplaced, subtrochanteric fracture, better observed on other cuts, is seen as a fine lucency (blue arrow).

Although hypophosphatemia is often a nonspecific finding in hospitalized patients and is usually of little clinical importance, profound hypophosphatemia that is refractory to supplementation suggests an underlying metabolic disorder. Phosphate levels less than 1.0 mg/dL, particularly if prolonged, can lead to decreased adenosine triphosphate production and subsequent weakness of respiratory and cardiac muscles. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) excess and production of parathyroid hormone‐related protein (PTHrP) by a malignancy can cause profound hypophosphatemia, but are generally associated with hypercalcemia, a finding not seen in this case. Occasionally, tumors can lead to renal phosphate wasting via nonPTH‐related mechanisms. The best characterized example of this is the paraneoplastic syndrome oncogenic osteomalacia caused by tumor production of a fibroblast growth factor. Tumors that lead to this syndrome are usually benign mesenchymal tumors. This patient's tumor may be of this type, causing local destruction and metabolic disturbance. The next step would be consultation with orthopedic surgery for resection of the tumor and total hip arthroplasty with aggressive perioperative repletion of phosphate. Assessment of intact PTH, ionized calcium, 24‐hour urinary phosphate excretion, and even PTHrP levels may help to rule out other etiologies of hypophosphatemia, but given that surgery is needed regardless, it might be reasonable to proceed to the operating room without these diagnostics. If the phosphate levels return to normal postoperatively, then the diagnosis is clear and no further metabolic testing is needed.

PTH level was 47 pg/mL (NR 1065), 25‐hydroxyvitamin D level was 25 ng/mL (NR 2580), and 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level was 18 pg/mL (NR 1872). Urinalysis was normal without proteinuria or glucosuria. A 24‐hour urine collection contained 1936 mg of phosphate (NR 4001200). The ratio of maximum rate of renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate to glomerular filtration rate (TmP/GFR) was 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.44.2). Tissue obtained by CT‐guided needle biopsy of the femoral mass was consistent with a benign spindle cell neoplasm.

With normal calcium levels, the PTH level is appropriate, and hyperparathyroidism is excluded. The levels of 25‐hydroxyvitamin D and 1‐25‐dihydroxyvitamin D are not low enough to suggest that vitamin D deficiency is driving the impressive hypophosphatemia. What is impressive is the phosphate wasting demonstrated by the 24‐hour urine collection, consistent with paraneoplastic overproduction of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) by the benign bone tumor. Overproduction of this protein can be detected by blood tests or staining of the tumor specimen, but surgery should be performed as soon as possible independent of any further test results. Once the tumor is resected, phosphate metabolism should normalize.

FGF23 level was 266 RU/mL (NR < 180). The patient was diagnosed with tumor‐induced osteomalacia (TIO). He underwent complete resection of the femoral tumor as well as open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture. After surgery, his symptoms of pain and subjective muscle weakness improved, his serum phosphate level normalized, his need for phosphate supplementation resolved, and his blood levels of FGF23 decreased into the normal range (111 RU/mL). The rapid improvement of his symptoms after surgery suggested that they were related to TIO, and not manifestations of SLE or RA. His immunosuppressant medications were discontinued. Surgical pathology demonstrated a heterogeneous tumor consisting of sheets of uniform spindle cells interspersed with mature adipose tissue. This was diagnosed descriptively as a benign spindle cell and lipomatous neoplasm without further classification. Two months later, the patient was ambulating without pain, and muscle strength was subjectively normal.

DISCUSSION

TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome affecting phosphate and vitamin D metabolism, leading to hypophosphatemia and osteomalacia.[1] TIO is caused by the inappropriate tumor secretion of the phosphatonin hormone, FGF23.

The normal physiology of FGF23 is illustrated in Figure 2. Osteocytes appear to be the primary source of FGF23, but the regulation of FGF23 production is not completely understood. FGF23 production may be influenced by several factors, including 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D levels, and serum phosphate and PTH concentrations. This hormone binds to the FGF receptor and its coreceptor, Klotho,[2] causing 2 major physiological effects. First, it decreases the expression of the sodium‐phosphate cotransporters in the renal proximal tubular cells,[3, 4] resulting in increased tubular phosphate wasting. This effect appears to be partly PTH dependent.[5] Second, it has effects on vitamin D metabolism, decreasing renal production of activated vitamin D.[3, 4, 6]

Figure 2
Summary of normal FGF23 physiology. FGF23 is produced by bone osteocytes, and its production is stimulated by serum phosphate and 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D. FGF23 has 2 major actions at the level of the kidney: (1) it downregulates the sodium‐phosphate cotransporter (NaPi‐2a) in the distal convoluted tubule, and (2) it downregulates the production of 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by 1 alpha‐hydroxylase. In addition, FGF23 is thought to decrease active 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by inducing renal Cyp24a1, the enzyme that deactivates 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D (not shown). The resulting phosphaturia and decreased intestinal absorption of phosphate lead to lower serum phosphate concentrations. Klotho is a cofactor that increases receptor affinity for FGF23. Abbreviations: Ca, calcium; FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23; PO4, phosphate.

In overproduction states, the elevated FGF23 leads to chronically low serum phosphate levels (with renal phosphate wasting) and the clinical syndrome of osteomalacia, manifested by bone pain, fractures, and deformities. Hypophosphatemia can also lead to painful proximal myopathy, cardiorespiratory dysfunction, and a spectrum of neuropsychiatric findings. The clinical findings in TIO are similar to those seen in genetic diseases in which hypophosphatemia results from the same mechanism.[3, 4]

In this case, measurement of the serum phosphate level was important in reaching the diagnosis. Although hypophosphatemia in the hospitalized patient is often easily explained, severe or persistent hypophosphatemia requires a focused evaluation. Causes of hypophosphatemia are categorized in Table 1.[7, 8, 9] In patients with hypophosphatemia that is not explained by the clinical situation (eg, osmotic diuresis, insulin treatment, refeeding syndrome, postparathyroidectomy, chronic diarrhea), measurement of serum calcium, PTH, and 25‐hydroxyvitamin D are used to investigate possible primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism. In addition, low‐normal or low serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D with normal PTH, normal 25‐hydroxyvitamin D stores, and normal renal function are clues to the presence of TIO. Urine phosphate wasting can be measured by collecting a 24‐hour urine sample. Calculation of the TmP/GFR (a measure of the maximum tubular resorption of phosphate relative to the glomerular filtration rate), as described by the nomogram of Walton and Bijvoet, may improve the accuracy of this assessment and confirm a renal source of the hypophosphatemia.[10]

Major Causes of Hypophosphatemia
  • NOTE: TPN, total parenteral nutrition. *Alcoholism causes hypophosphatemia via multiple mechanisms, including poor intake/absorption, internal redistribution, and renal effects.

Internal redistribution
Insulin or catecholamine effect (including that related to refeeding syndrome, and infusion of glucose or TPN)
Acute respiratory alkalosis
Accelerated bone formation or rapid cell proliferation (eg, hungry bone syndrome, leukemic blast crisis, erythropoietin, or granulocyte colony stimulating factor administration)
Decreased absorption
Poor intake (including that seen in alcoholism*)
Vitamin D deficiency
Gastrointestinal losses (eg, chronic diarrhea)
Malabsorption (eg, phosphate‐binding antacids)
Urinary losses
Osmotic diuresis (eg, poorly controlled diabetes, acetazolamide) or volume expansion
Other diuretics: thiazides, indapamide
Hyperparathyroidism
Primary
Secondary (including vitamin D or calcium deficiency)
Parathyroid hormone‐related peptide
Renal tubular disease
Medications (eg, ethanol,* high‐dose glucocorticoids, cisplatin, bisphosphonates, estrogens, imatinib, acyclovir)
Fanconi syndrome
Medications inducing Fanconi syndrome: tenofovir, cidofovir, adefovir, aminoglycosides, ifosfamide, tetracyclines, valproic acid
Other (eg, postrenal transplant)
Excessive phosphatonin hormone activity (eg, hereditary syndromes [rickets], tumor‐induced osteomalacia)
Multifactorial causes
Alcoholism*
Acetaminophen toxicity
Parenteral iron administration

The patient presented here had inappropriate urinary phosphate losses, and laboratory testing ruled out primary and secondary hyperparathyroidism and Fanconi syndrome. The patient was not taking medications known to cause tubular phosphate wasting. The patient's age and clinical history made hereditary syndromes unlikely. Therefore, the urinary phosphate wasting had to be related to an acquired defect in phosphate metabolism. The diagnostic characteristics of TIO are summarized in Table 2.

Diagnostic Features of Tumor‐Induced Osteomalacia
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23.

Patients may present with symptoms of osteomalacia (eg, bone pain, fractures), hypophosphatemia (eg, proximal myopathy), and/or neoplasm.
Hypophosphatemia with urinary phosphate wasting.
Serum calcium level is usually normal.
Serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level is usually low or low‐normal.
Parathyroid hormone is usually normal.
Plasma FGF23 level is elevated.
A neoplasm with the appropriate histology is identified, although the osteomalacia syndrome may precede identification of the tumor, which may be occult.
The syndrome resolves after complete resection of the tumor.

The presence of a known neoplasm makes the diagnosis of TIO considerably easier. However, osteomalacia often precedes the tumor diagnosis. In these cases, the discovery of this clinical syndrome necessitates a search for the tumor. The tumors can be small, occult, and often located in the extremities. In addition to standard cross‐sectional imaging, specialized diagnostic modalities can be helpful in localizing culprit tumors. These include F‐18 flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography, 111‐Indium octreotide single photon emission CT/CT, 68‐Gallium‐DOTA‐octreotide positron emission tomography with computed tomography, and even selective venous sampling for FGF23 levels.[1, 11] The octreotide tests capitalize on the fact that culprit tumors often express somatostatin receptors.

TIO is most often associated with mesenchymal tumors of the bone or soft tissue. It has also been reported in association with several malignancies (small cell carcinoma, hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer), and with polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, neurofibromatosis, and the epidermal nevus syndrome. The mesenchymal tumors are heterogeneous in appearance and can be variably classified as hemangiopericytomas, hemangiomas, sarcomas, ossifying fibromas, granulomas, giant cell tumors, or osteoblastomas.[1] However, 1 review suggests that most of these tumors actually represent a distinct but heterogeneous, under‐recognized entity that is best classified as a phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor.[11]

TIO is only cured by complete resection of the tumor.[1] Local recurrences have been described, as have rare occurrences of metastatic disease.[1, 12] Medical treatment can be used to normalize serum phosphate levels in patients who are unable to be cured by surgery. The goal is to bring serum phosphate into the low‐normal range via phosphate supplementation (typically 13 g/day of elemental phosphorus is required) and treatment with either calcitriol or alfacalcidol. Due to the inhibition of 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D activation in TIO, relatively large doses of calcitriol are needed. A reasonable starting dose of calcitriol is 1.5 g/day, and most patients require 15 to 60 ng/kg per day. Because PTH action is involved in FGF23‐mediated hypophosphatemia, suppression of PTH may also be useful in these patients.[13]

This patient presented with a painful femoral tumor in the setting of muscle and joint pain that had been erroneously attributed to connective tissue disease. However, recognition and thorough evaluation of the patient's hypophosphatemia led to a unifying diagnosis of TIO. This diagnosis altered the surgical approach (emphasizing complete resection to eradicate the FGF23 production) and helped alleviate the patient's painful losses of phosphate.

TEACHING POINTS

  1. Hypophosphatemia, especially if severe or persistent, should not be dismissed as an unimportant laboratory finding. A focused evaluation should be performed to determine the etiology.
  2. In patients with unexplained hypophosphatemia, the measurement of serum calcium, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels can identify primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism.
  3. The differential diagnosis of hypophosphatemia is narrowed if there is clinical evidence of inappropriate urinary phosphate wasting (ie, urinary phosphate levels remain high, despite low serum levels).
  4. TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome caused by FGF23, a phosphatonin hormone that causes renal phosphate wasting, hypophosphatemia, and osteomalacia.

Disclosure: Nothing to report.

Files
References
  1. Chong WH, Molinolo AA, Chen CC, Collins MT. Tumor‐induced osteomalacia. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011;18:R53R77.
  2. Razzaque MS. The FGF23‐Klotho axis: endocrine regulation of phosphate homeostasis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5:611619.
  3. Prié D, Friedlander G. Genetic disorders of renal phosphate transport. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:23992409.
  4. Carpenter TO. The expanding family of hypophosphatemic syndromes. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30:19.
  5. Gupta A, Winer K, Econs MJ, Marx SJ, Collins MT. FGF‐23 is elevated by chronic hyperphosphatemia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:44894492.
  6. Shimada T, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki Y, et al. FGF‐23 is a potent regulator of vitamin D metabolism and phosphate homeostasis. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:429435.
  7. Gaasbeek A, Meinders AE. Hypophosphatemia: an update on its etiology and treatment. Am J Med. 2005;118:10941101.
  8. Bringhurst FR, Demay MB, Kronenberg HM. In: Melmed S, Polonsky KS, Larsen PR, Kronenberg HM, eds. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 12th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2011:12371304.
  9. Liamis G, Milionis HJ, Elisaf M. Medication‐induced hypophosphatemia: a review. QJM. 2010;103:449459.
  10. Walton RJ, Bijvoet OL. Nomogram for derivation of renal threshold phosphate concentration. Lancet. 1975;2:309310.
  11. Clifton‐Bligh RJ, Hofman MS, Duncan E, et al. Improving diagnosis of tumor‐induced osteomalacia with gallium‐68 DOTATATE PET/CT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98:687694.
  12. Folpe AL, Fanburg‐Smith JC, Billings SD, et al. Most osteomalacia‐associated mesenchymal tumors are a single histopathologic entity: an analysis of 32 cases and a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:130.
  13. Geller JL, Khosravi A, Kelly MH, Riminucci M, Adams JS, Collins MT. Cinacalcet in the management of tumor‐induced osteomalacia. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:931937.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(10)
Publications
Page Number
730-734
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

A 58‐year‐old man presented to the emergency department with a 1‐month history of progressive, severe left hip pain that had become unbearable. The pain was constant and significantly worse with weight‐bearing, and the patient was now confined to bed. He denied back pain, falls, or trauma.

Although hip pain is a common complaint and a frequent manifestation of chronic degenerative joint disease, the debilitating and subacute nature of the pain suggests a potentially more serious underlying cause. Patients and even clinicians may refer to hip pain when the actual symptoms are periarticular, often presenting over the trochanter laterally, or muscular, presenting as posterior pain. The true hip joint is located in the anterior hip and groin area and often causes symptoms that radiate to the buttock. Pain can also be referred to the hip area from the spine, pelvis, or retroperitoneum, so it is crucial not to restrict the differential diagnosis to hip pathology.

Key diagnostic considerations include (1) inflammatory conditions such as trochanteric bursitis or gout; (2) bacterial infection of the hip joint, adjacent bone, or a nearby structure; (3) benign nerve compression (such as meralgia paresthetica); and (4) tumor (particularly myeloma or metastatic disease to the bone, but also potentially a pelvic or spinal mass with nerve compression). Polymyalgia rheumatica and other systemic rheumatologic complaints are a consideration, but because a single joint is involved, these conditions are less likely. The hip would be an unusual location for a first gout flare, and the duration of symptoms would be unusually long for gout. Avascular necrosis should be considered if the patient has received glucocorticoids for his previously diagnosed rheumatologic disease. If the patient is anticoagulated, consideration of spontaneous hematoma is reasonable, but usually this would present over a course of days, not weeks. The absence of trauma makes a fracture of the hip or pelvis less likely, and the insidious progression of symptoms makes a pathologic fracture less likely.

The patient reported 6 months of worsening proximal upper and lower extremity myalgia and weakness, with arthralgia of the hips and shoulders. The weakness was most notable in his proximal lower extremities, although he had remained ambulatory until the hip pain became limiting. He maintained normal use of his arms. The patient denied current rash but noted photosensitivity and a mild facial rash several months earlier. He described having transient mouth sores intermittently for several years. He denied fever, chills, night sweats, weight loss, dyspnea, recent travel, and outdoor exposures. Several months previously, he had been evaluated for these symptoms at another institution and given the diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). At that time, he had initiated treatment with weekly dosing of methotrexate and etanercept.

The patient's medical history was also notable for hypertension, Graves' disease treated previously with radioiodine ablation, quiescent ulcerative colitis, and depression. Current medications included methotrexate, etanercept, levothyroxine, enalapril, hydrochlorothiazide, fluoxetine, ibuprofen, and oxycodone‐acetaminophen. He denied tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drug use.

Weakness occurring in the proximal lower extremities is the classic distribution for polymyositis and dermatomyositis. In contrast to polymyalgia rheumatica, dermatomyositis and polymyositis do not generally feature severe muscle pain, but they can be associated with a painful polyarthritis. Oral ulcers, photosensitivity, and facial rash are consistent with SLE, but dermatomyositis can also lead to a symmetrical erythema of the eyelids (commonly referred to as a heliotrope rash, named after the flower bearing that name) and sometimes can be associated with photosensitivity. Oral ulcers, particularly the painful ones known as canker sores, are extraordinarily common in the general population, and patients and providers may miss the mucosal lesions of SLE because they are usually painless. As methotrexate and etanercept are immunosuppressive, opportunistic pathogens such as typical or atypical mycobacteria and disseminated fungal infections should be considered, with special attention to the possibility of infection in or near the left hip. Given that SLE and RA rarely coexist, it would be helpful to seek outside medical records to know what the prior serologic evaluation entailed, but it is unlikely that this presentation is a manifestation of a diffuse connective tissue process.

Physical examination should focus on the features of dermatomyositis including heliotrope rash, truncal erythema, and papules over the knuckles (Gottron's papules); objective proximal muscle weakness in the shoulder and hip girdle; and findings that might suggest antisynthetase syndrome such as hyperkeratotic mechanic hand palmar and digital changes, and interstitial crackles on lung exam. If necrotic skin lesions are found, this would raise concern for a disseminated infection. The joints should be examined for inflammation and effusions.

His temperature was 36.6C, heart rate 74 beats per minute, blood pressure 134/76 mm Hg, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and O2 saturation 97% on room air. He was obese but did not have moon facies or a buffalo hump. There were no rashes or mucosal lesions. Active and passive motion of his left hip joint elicited pain with both flexion/extension and internal/external rotation. Muscle strength was limited by pain in the left hip flexors and extenders, but was 5/5 in all other muscle groups. Palpation of the proximal muscles of his arms and legs did not elicit pain. His extremities were without edema, and examination of his shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, knees, ankles, and feet did not reveal any erythema, synovial thickening, effusion, or deformity. Examination of the heart, chest, and abdomen was normal.

Given the reassuring strength examination, the absence of rashes or skin lesions, and the reassuring joint exam aside from the left hip, a focal infectious, inflammatory, or malignant process seems most likely. The pain with range of motion of the hip does not definitively localize the pathology to the hip joint, because pathology of the nearby structures can lead to pain when the hip is moved. Laboratory evaluation should include a complete blood count to screen for evidence of infection or marrow suppression, complete metabolic panel, and creatine kinase. The history of ulcerative colitis raises the possibility of an enthesitis (inflammation of tendons or ligaments) occurring near the hip. Enthesitis is sometimes a feature of the seronegative spondyloarthropathy‐associated conditions and can occur in the absence of sacroiliitis or spondyloarthropathy.

The patient's myalgias and arthralgias had recently been evaluated in the rheumatology clinic. Laboratory evaluation from that visit was remarkable only for an antinuclear antibody (ANA) test that was positive at a titer of 1:320 in a homogeneous pattern, creatine phosphokinase 366 IU/L (normal range [NR] 38240), and alkaline phosphatase 203 IU/L (NR 30130). All of the following labs from that visit were within normal ranges: cyclic citrullinated peptide, rheumatoid factor, antidouble stranded DNA, aldolase, complement levels, serum and urine protein electrophoresis, thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid microsomal antibody, thyroid‐stimulating hormone, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (10 mm/h), and C‐reactive protein (0.3 mg/dL).

The patient was admitted to the hospital. Initial blood test results on admission included sodium 139 mEq/L, potassium 3.9 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 27 mEq/L, urea nitrogen 16 mg/dL, creatinine 0.6 mg/dL, glucose 85 mg/dL, calcium 9.2 mg/dL (NR 8.810.3), phosphate 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.74.6), albumin 4.7 g/dL (NR 3.54.9), and alkaline phosphatase 195 IU/L (NR 30130). The remainder of a comprehensive metabolic profile, complete blood count with differential, and coagulation studies were all normal.

The homogeneous ANA titer of 1:320 is high enough to raise eyebrows, but is nonspecific for lupus and other ANA‐associated rheumatologic conditions, and may be a red herring, particularly given the low likelihood of a systemic inflammatory process explaining this new focal hip pain. The alkaline phosphatase is only mildly elevated and could be of bone or liver origin. The reassuringly low inflammatory markers are potentially helpful, because if checked now and substantially increased from the prior outpatient visit, they would be suggestive of a new inflammatory process. However, this would not point to a specific cause of inflammation.

Given the focality of the symptoms, imaging is warranted. As opposed to plain films, contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be an efficient first step, because there is low suspicion for fracture and high suspicion for an inflammatory, neoplastic, or infectious process. MRI is more expensive and usually cannot be obtained as rapidly as CT. There is a chance that CT imaging alone will provide enough information to guide the next diagnostic steps, such as aspiration of an abscess or joint, or biopsy of a suspicious lesion. However, for soft tissue lesions and many bone lesions, including osteomyelitis, MRI offers better delineation of pathology.

CT scan of the left femur demonstrated a large lytic lesion in the femoral neck that contained macroscopic fat and had an aggressive appearance with significant thinning of the cortex. MRI confirmed these findings and demonstrated a nondisplaced subtrochanteric femur fracture in the proximity of the lesion (Figure 1). Contrast‐enhanced CT scans of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no other neoplastic lesions. Prostate‐specific antigen level was normal. The patient's significant hypophosphatemia persisted, with levels dropping to as low as 0.9 mg/dL despite aggressive oral phosphate replacement.

Figure 1
Coronal T1‐weighted magnetic resonance image of the femoral mass. There is a nonspecific, heterogeneous, fat‐containing lesion within the femoral neck and intertrochanteric region. The bright areas (red arrow), suppressed on short tau inversion recovery images, are consistent with fat. The nondisplaced, subtrochanteric fracture, better observed on other cuts, is seen as a fine lucency (blue arrow).

Although hypophosphatemia is often a nonspecific finding in hospitalized patients and is usually of little clinical importance, profound hypophosphatemia that is refractory to supplementation suggests an underlying metabolic disorder. Phosphate levels less than 1.0 mg/dL, particularly if prolonged, can lead to decreased adenosine triphosphate production and subsequent weakness of respiratory and cardiac muscles. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) excess and production of parathyroid hormone‐related protein (PTHrP) by a malignancy can cause profound hypophosphatemia, but are generally associated with hypercalcemia, a finding not seen in this case. Occasionally, tumors can lead to renal phosphate wasting via nonPTH‐related mechanisms. The best characterized example of this is the paraneoplastic syndrome oncogenic osteomalacia caused by tumor production of a fibroblast growth factor. Tumors that lead to this syndrome are usually benign mesenchymal tumors. This patient's tumor may be of this type, causing local destruction and metabolic disturbance. The next step would be consultation with orthopedic surgery for resection of the tumor and total hip arthroplasty with aggressive perioperative repletion of phosphate. Assessment of intact PTH, ionized calcium, 24‐hour urinary phosphate excretion, and even PTHrP levels may help to rule out other etiologies of hypophosphatemia, but given that surgery is needed regardless, it might be reasonable to proceed to the operating room without these diagnostics. If the phosphate levels return to normal postoperatively, then the diagnosis is clear and no further metabolic testing is needed.

PTH level was 47 pg/mL (NR 1065), 25‐hydroxyvitamin D level was 25 ng/mL (NR 2580), and 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level was 18 pg/mL (NR 1872). Urinalysis was normal without proteinuria or glucosuria. A 24‐hour urine collection contained 1936 mg of phosphate (NR 4001200). The ratio of maximum rate of renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate to glomerular filtration rate (TmP/GFR) was 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.44.2). Tissue obtained by CT‐guided needle biopsy of the femoral mass was consistent with a benign spindle cell neoplasm.

With normal calcium levels, the PTH level is appropriate, and hyperparathyroidism is excluded. The levels of 25‐hydroxyvitamin D and 1‐25‐dihydroxyvitamin D are not low enough to suggest that vitamin D deficiency is driving the impressive hypophosphatemia. What is impressive is the phosphate wasting demonstrated by the 24‐hour urine collection, consistent with paraneoplastic overproduction of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) by the benign bone tumor. Overproduction of this protein can be detected by blood tests or staining of the tumor specimen, but surgery should be performed as soon as possible independent of any further test results. Once the tumor is resected, phosphate metabolism should normalize.

FGF23 level was 266 RU/mL (NR < 180). The patient was diagnosed with tumor‐induced osteomalacia (TIO). He underwent complete resection of the femoral tumor as well as open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture. After surgery, his symptoms of pain and subjective muscle weakness improved, his serum phosphate level normalized, his need for phosphate supplementation resolved, and his blood levels of FGF23 decreased into the normal range (111 RU/mL). The rapid improvement of his symptoms after surgery suggested that they were related to TIO, and not manifestations of SLE or RA. His immunosuppressant medications were discontinued. Surgical pathology demonstrated a heterogeneous tumor consisting of sheets of uniform spindle cells interspersed with mature adipose tissue. This was diagnosed descriptively as a benign spindle cell and lipomatous neoplasm without further classification. Two months later, the patient was ambulating without pain, and muscle strength was subjectively normal.

DISCUSSION

TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome affecting phosphate and vitamin D metabolism, leading to hypophosphatemia and osteomalacia.[1] TIO is caused by the inappropriate tumor secretion of the phosphatonin hormone, FGF23.

The normal physiology of FGF23 is illustrated in Figure 2. Osteocytes appear to be the primary source of FGF23, but the regulation of FGF23 production is not completely understood. FGF23 production may be influenced by several factors, including 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D levels, and serum phosphate and PTH concentrations. This hormone binds to the FGF receptor and its coreceptor, Klotho,[2] causing 2 major physiological effects. First, it decreases the expression of the sodium‐phosphate cotransporters in the renal proximal tubular cells,[3, 4] resulting in increased tubular phosphate wasting. This effect appears to be partly PTH dependent.[5] Second, it has effects on vitamin D metabolism, decreasing renal production of activated vitamin D.[3, 4, 6]

Figure 2
Summary of normal FGF23 physiology. FGF23 is produced by bone osteocytes, and its production is stimulated by serum phosphate and 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D. FGF23 has 2 major actions at the level of the kidney: (1) it downregulates the sodium‐phosphate cotransporter (NaPi‐2a) in the distal convoluted tubule, and (2) it downregulates the production of 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by 1 alpha‐hydroxylase. In addition, FGF23 is thought to decrease active 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by inducing renal Cyp24a1, the enzyme that deactivates 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D (not shown). The resulting phosphaturia and decreased intestinal absorption of phosphate lead to lower serum phosphate concentrations. Klotho is a cofactor that increases receptor affinity for FGF23. Abbreviations: Ca, calcium; FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23; PO4, phosphate.

In overproduction states, the elevated FGF23 leads to chronically low serum phosphate levels (with renal phosphate wasting) and the clinical syndrome of osteomalacia, manifested by bone pain, fractures, and deformities. Hypophosphatemia can also lead to painful proximal myopathy, cardiorespiratory dysfunction, and a spectrum of neuropsychiatric findings. The clinical findings in TIO are similar to those seen in genetic diseases in which hypophosphatemia results from the same mechanism.[3, 4]

In this case, measurement of the serum phosphate level was important in reaching the diagnosis. Although hypophosphatemia in the hospitalized patient is often easily explained, severe or persistent hypophosphatemia requires a focused evaluation. Causes of hypophosphatemia are categorized in Table 1.[7, 8, 9] In patients with hypophosphatemia that is not explained by the clinical situation (eg, osmotic diuresis, insulin treatment, refeeding syndrome, postparathyroidectomy, chronic diarrhea), measurement of serum calcium, PTH, and 25‐hydroxyvitamin D are used to investigate possible primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism. In addition, low‐normal or low serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D with normal PTH, normal 25‐hydroxyvitamin D stores, and normal renal function are clues to the presence of TIO. Urine phosphate wasting can be measured by collecting a 24‐hour urine sample. Calculation of the TmP/GFR (a measure of the maximum tubular resorption of phosphate relative to the glomerular filtration rate), as described by the nomogram of Walton and Bijvoet, may improve the accuracy of this assessment and confirm a renal source of the hypophosphatemia.[10]

Major Causes of Hypophosphatemia
  • NOTE: TPN, total parenteral nutrition. *Alcoholism causes hypophosphatemia via multiple mechanisms, including poor intake/absorption, internal redistribution, and renal effects.

Internal redistribution
Insulin or catecholamine effect (including that related to refeeding syndrome, and infusion of glucose or TPN)
Acute respiratory alkalosis
Accelerated bone formation or rapid cell proliferation (eg, hungry bone syndrome, leukemic blast crisis, erythropoietin, or granulocyte colony stimulating factor administration)
Decreased absorption
Poor intake (including that seen in alcoholism*)
Vitamin D deficiency
Gastrointestinal losses (eg, chronic diarrhea)
Malabsorption (eg, phosphate‐binding antacids)
Urinary losses
Osmotic diuresis (eg, poorly controlled diabetes, acetazolamide) or volume expansion
Other diuretics: thiazides, indapamide
Hyperparathyroidism
Primary
Secondary (including vitamin D or calcium deficiency)
Parathyroid hormone‐related peptide
Renal tubular disease
Medications (eg, ethanol,* high‐dose glucocorticoids, cisplatin, bisphosphonates, estrogens, imatinib, acyclovir)
Fanconi syndrome
Medications inducing Fanconi syndrome: tenofovir, cidofovir, adefovir, aminoglycosides, ifosfamide, tetracyclines, valproic acid
Other (eg, postrenal transplant)
Excessive phosphatonin hormone activity (eg, hereditary syndromes [rickets], tumor‐induced osteomalacia)
Multifactorial causes
Alcoholism*
Acetaminophen toxicity
Parenteral iron administration

The patient presented here had inappropriate urinary phosphate losses, and laboratory testing ruled out primary and secondary hyperparathyroidism and Fanconi syndrome. The patient was not taking medications known to cause tubular phosphate wasting. The patient's age and clinical history made hereditary syndromes unlikely. Therefore, the urinary phosphate wasting had to be related to an acquired defect in phosphate metabolism. The diagnostic characteristics of TIO are summarized in Table 2.

Diagnostic Features of Tumor‐Induced Osteomalacia
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23.

Patients may present with symptoms of osteomalacia (eg, bone pain, fractures), hypophosphatemia (eg, proximal myopathy), and/or neoplasm.
Hypophosphatemia with urinary phosphate wasting.
Serum calcium level is usually normal.
Serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level is usually low or low‐normal.
Parathyroid hormone is usually normal.
Plasma FGF23 level is elevated.
A neoplasm with the appropriate histology is identified, although the osteomalacia syndrome may precede identification of the tumor, which may be occult.
The syndrome resolves after complete resection of the tumor.

The presence of a known neoplasm makes the diagnosis of TIO considerably easier. However, osteomalacia often precedes the tumor diagnosis. In these cases, the discovery of this clinical syndrome necessitates a search for the tumor. The tumors can be small, occult, and often located in the extremities. In addition to standard cross‐sectional imaging, specialized diagnostic modalities can be helpful in localizing culprit tumors. These include F‐18 flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography, 111‐Indium octreotide single photon emission CT/CT, 68‐Gallium‐DOTA‐octreotide positron emission tomography with computed tomography, and even selective venous sampling for FGF23 levels.[1, 11] The octreotide tests capitalize on the fact that culprit tumors often express somatostatin receptors.

TIO is most often associated with mesenchymal tumors of the bone or soft tissue. It has also been reported in association with several malignancies (small cell carcinoma, hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer), and with polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, neurofibromatosis, and the epidermal nevus syndrome. The mesenchymal tumors are heterogeneous in appearance and can be variably classified as hemangiopericytomas, hemangiomas, sarcomas, ossifying fibromas, granulomas, giant cell tumors, or osteoblastomas.[1] However, 1 review suggests that most of these tumors actually represent a distinct but heterogeneous, under‐recognized entity that is best classified as a phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor.[11]

TIO is only cured by complete resection of the tumor.[1] Local recurrences have been described, as have rare occurrences of metastatic disease.[1, 12] Medical treatment can be used to normalize serum phosphate levels in patients who are unable to be cured by surgery. The goal is to bring serum phosphate into the low‐normal range via phosphate supplementation (typically 13 g/day of elemental phosphorus is required) and treatment with either calcitriol or alfacalcidol. Due to the inhibition of 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D activation in TIO, relatively large doses of calcitriol are needed. A reasonable starting dose of calcitriol is 1.5 g/day, and most patients require 15 to 60 ng/kg per day. Because PTH action is involved in FGF23‐mediated hypophosphatemia, suppression of PTH may also be useful in these patients.[13]

This patient presented with a painful femoral tumor in the setting of muscle and joint pain that had been erroneously attributed to connective tissue disease. However, recognition and thorough evaluation of the patient's hypophosphatemia led to a unifying diagnosis of TIO. This diagnosis altered the surgical approach (emphasizing complete resection to eradicate the FGF23 production) and helped alleviate the patient's painful losses of phosphate.

TEACHING POINTS

  1. Hypophosphatemia, especially if severe or persistent, should not be dismissed as an unimportant laboratory finding. A focused evaluation should be performed to determine the etiology.
  2. In patients with unexplained hypophosphatemia, the measurement of serum calcium, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels can identify primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism.
  3. The differential diagnosis of hypophosphatemia is narrowed if there is clinical evidence of inappropriate urinary phosphate wasting (ie, urinary phosphate levels remain high, despite low serum levels).
  4. TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome caused by FGF23, a phosphatonin hormone that causes renal phosphate wasting, hypophosphatemia, and osteomalacia.

Disclosure: Nothing to report.

A 58‐year‐old man presented to the emergency department with a 1‐month history of progressive, severe left hip pain that had become unbearable. The pain was constant and significantly worse with weight‐bearing, and the patient was now confined to bed. He denied back pain, falls, or trauma.

Although hip pain is a common complaint and a frequent manifestation of chronic degenerative joint disease, the debilitating and subacute nature of the pain suggests a potentially more serious underlying cause. Patients and even clinicians may refer to hip pain when the actual symptoms are periarticular, often presenting over the trochanter laterally, or muscular, presenting as posterior pain. The true hip joint is located in the anterior hip and groin area and often causes symptoms that radiate to the buttock. Pain can also be referred to the hip area from the spine, pelvis, or retroperitoneum, so it is crucial not to restrict the differential diagnosis to hip pathology.

Key diagnostic considerations include (1) inflammatory conditions such as trochanteric bursitis or gout; (2) bacterial infection of the hip joint, adjacent bone, or a nearby structure; (3) benign nerve compression (such as meralgia paresthetica); and (4) tumor (particularly myeloma or metastatic disease to the bone, but also potentially a pelvic or spinal mass with nerve compression). Polymyalgia rheumatica and other systemic rheumatologic complaints are a consideration, but because a single joint is involved, these conditions are less likely. The hip would be an unusual location for a first gout flare, and the duration of symptoms would be unusually long for gout. Avascular necrosis should be considered if the patient has received glucocorticoids for his previously diagnosed rheumatologic disease. If the patient is anticoagulated, consideration of spontaneous hematoma is reasonable, but usually this would present over a course of days, not weeks. The absence of trauma makes a fracture of the hip or pelvis less likely, and the insidious progression of symptoms makes a pathologic fracture less likely.

The patient reported 6 months of worsening proximal upper and lower extremity myalgia and weakness, with arthralgia of the hips and shoulders. The weakness was most notable in his proximal lower extremities, although he had remained ambulatory until the hip pain became limiting. He maintained normal use of his arms. The patient denied current rash but noted photosensitivity and a mild facial rash several months earlier. He described having transient mouth sores intermittently for several years. He denied fever, chills, night sweats, weight loss, dyspnea, recent travel, and outdoor exposures. Several months previously, he had been evaluated for these symptoms at another institution and given the diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). At that time, he had initiated treatment with weekly dosing of methotrexate and etanercept.

The patient's medical history was also notable for hypertension, Graves' disease treated previously with radioiodine ablation, quiescent ulcerative colitis, and depression. Current medications included methotrexate, etanercept, levothyroxine, enalapril, hydrochlorothiazide, fluoxetine, ibuprofen, and oxycodone‐acetaminophen. He denied tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drug use.

Weakness occurring in the proximal lower extremities is the classic distribution for polymyositis and dermatomyositis. In contrast to polymyalgia rheumatica, dermatomyositis and polymyositis do not generally feature severe muscle pain, but they can be associated with a painful polyarthritis. Oral ulcers, photosensitivity, and facial rash are consistent with SLE, but dermatomyositis can also lead to a symmetrical erythema of the eyelids (commonly referred to as a heliotrope rash, named after the flower bearing that name) and sometimes can be associated with photosensitivity. Oral ulcers, particularly the painful ones known as canker sores, are extraordinarily common in the general population, and patients and providers may miss the mucosal lesions of SLE because they are usually painless. As methotrexate and etanercept are immunosuppressive, opportunistic pathogens such as typical or atypical mycobacteria and disseminated fungal infections should be considered, with special attention to the possibility of infection in or near the left hip. Given that SLE and RA rarely coexist, it would be helpful to seek outside medical records to know what the prior serologic evaluation entailed, but it is unlikely that this presentation is a manifestation of a diffuse connective tissue process.

Physical examination should focus on the features of dermatomyositis including heliotrope rash, truncal erythema, and papules over the knuckles (Gottron's papules); objective proximal muscle weakness in the shoulder and hip girdle; and findings that might suggest antisynthetase syndrome such as hyperkeratotic mechanic hand palmar and digital changes, and interstitial crackles on lung exam. If necrotic skin lesions are found, this would raise concern for a disseminated infection. The joints should be examined for inflammation and effusions.

His temperature was 36.6C, heart rate 74 beats per minute, blood pressure 134/76 mm Hg, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and O2 saturation 97% on room air. He was obese but did not have moon facies or a buffalo hump. There were no rashes or mucosal lesions. Active and passive motion of his left hip joint elicited pain with both flexion/extension and internal/external rotation. Muscle strength was limited by pain in the left hip flexors and extenders, but was 5/5 in all other muscle groups. Palpation of the proximal muscles of his arms and legs did not elicit pain. His extremities were without edema, and examination of his shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, knees, ankles, and feet did not reveal any erythema, synovial thickening, effusion, or deformity. Examination of the heart, chest, and abdomen was normal.

Given the reassuring strength examination, the absence of rashes or skin lesions, and the reassuring joint exam aside from the left hip, a focal infectious, inflammatory, or malignant process seems most likely. The pain with range of motion of the hip does not definitively localize the pathology to the hip joint, because pathology of the nearby structures can lead to pain when the hip is moved. Laboratory evaluation should include a complete blood count to screen for evidence of infection or marrow suppression, complete metabolic panel, and creatine kinase. The history of ulcerative colitis raises the possibility of an enthesitis (inflammation of tendons or ligaments) occurring near the hip. Enthesitis is sometimes a feature of the seronegative spondyloarthropathy‐associated conditions and can occur in the absence of sacroiliitis or spondyloarthropathy.

The patient's myalgias and arthralgias had recently been evaluated in the rheumatology clinic. Laboratory evaluation from that visit was remarkable only for an antinuclear antibody (ANA) test that was positive at a titer of 1:320 in a homogeneous pattern, creatine phosphokinase 366 IU/L (normal range [NR] 38240), and alkaline phosphatase 203 IU/L (NR 30130). All of the following labs from that visit were within normal ranges: cyclic citrullinated peptide, rheumatoid factor, antidouble stranded DNA, aldolase, complement levels, serum and urine protein electrophoresis, thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid microsomal antibody, thyroid‐stimulating hormone, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (10 mm/h), and C‐reactive protein (0.3 mg/dL).

The patient was admitted to the hospital. Initial blood test results on admission included sodium 139 mEq/L, potassium 3.9 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 27 mEq/L, urea nitrogen 16 mg/dL, creatinine 0.6 mg/dL, glucose 85 mg/dL, calcium 9.2 mg/dL (NR 8.810.3), phosphate 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.74.6), albumin 4.7 g/dL (NR 3.54.9), and alkaline phosphatase 195 IU/L (NR 30130). The remainder of a comprehensive metabolic profile, complete blood count with differential, and coagulation studies were all normal.

The homogeneous ANA titer of 1:320 is high enough to raise eyebrows, but is nonspecific for lupus and other ANA‐associated rheumatologic conditions, and may be a red herring, particularly given the low likelihood of a systemic inflammatory process explaining this new focal hip pain. The alkaline phosphatase is only mildly elevated and could be of bone or liver origin. The reassuringly low inflammatory markers are potentially helpful, because if checked now and substantially increased from the prior outpatient visit, they would be suggestive of a new inflammatory process. However, this would not point to a specific cause of inflammation.

Given the focality of the symptoms, imaging is warranted. As opposed to plain films, contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be an efficient first step, because there is low suspicion for fracture and high suspicion for an inflammatory, neoplastic, or infectious process. MRI is more expensive and usually cannot be obtained as rapidly as CT. There is a chance that CT imaging alone will provide enough information to guide the next diagnostic steps, such as aspiration of an abscess or joint, or biopsy of a suspicious lesion. However, for soft tissue lesions and many bone lesions, including osteomyelitis, MRI offers better delineation of pathology.

CT scan of the left femur demonstrated a large lytic lesion in the femoral neck that contained macroscopic fat and had an aggressive appearance with significant thinning of the cortex. MRI confirmed these findings and demonstrated a nondisplaced subtrochanteric femur fracture in the proximity of the lesion (Figure 1). Contrast‐enhanced CT scans of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis revealed no other neoplastic lesions. Prostate‐specific antigen level was normal. The patient's significant hypophosphatemia persisted, with levels dropping to as low as 0.9 mg/dL despite aggressive oral phosphate replacement.

Figure 1
Coronal T1‐weighted magnetic resonance image of the femoral mass. There is a nonspecific, heterogeneous, fat‐containing lesion within the femoral neck and intertrochanteric region. The bright areas (red arrow), suppressed on short tau inversion recovery images, are consistent with fat. The nondisplaced, subtrochanteric fracture, better observed on other cuts, is seen as a fine lucency (blue arrow).

Although hypophosphatemia is often a nonspecific finding in hospitalized patients and is usually of little clinical importance, profound hypophosphatemia that is refractory to supplementation suggests an underlying metabolic disorder. Phosphate levels less than 1.0 mg/dL, particularly if prolonged, can lead to decreased adenosine triphosphate production and subsequent weakness of respiratory and cardiac muscles. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) excess and production of parathyroid hormone‐related protein (PTHrP) by a malignancy can cause profound hypophosphatemia, but are generally associated with hypercalcemia, a finding not seen in this case. Occasionally, tumors can lead to renal phosphate wasting via nonPTH‐related mechanisms. The best characterized example of this is the paraneoplastic syndrome oncogenic osteomalacia caused by tumor production of a fibroblast growth factor. Tumors that lead to this syndrome are usually benign mesenchymal tumors. This patient's tumor may be of this type, causing local destruction and metabolic disturbance. The next step would be consultation with orthopedic surgery for resection of the tumor and total hip arthroplasty with aggressive perioperative repletion of phosphate. Assessment of intact PTH, ionized calcium, 24‐hour urinary phosphate excretion, and even PTHrP levels may help to rule out other etiologies of hypophosphatemia, but given that surgery is needed regardless, it might be reasonable to proceed to the operating room without these diagnostics. If the phosphate levels return to normal postoperatively, then the diagnosis is clear and no further metabolic testing is needed.

PTH level was 47 pg/mL (NR 1065), 25‐hydroxyvitamin D level was 25 ng/mL (NR 2580), and 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level was 18 pg/mL (NR 1872). Urinalysis was normal without proteinuria or glucosuria. A 24‐hour urine collection contained 1936 mg of phosphate (NR 4001200). The ratio of maximum rate of renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate to glomerular filtration rate (TmP/GFR) was 1.3 mg/dL (NR 2.44.2). Tissue obtained by CT‐guided needle biopsy of the femoral mass was consistent with a benign spindle cell neoplasm.

With normal calcium levels, the PTH level is appropriate, and hyperparathyroidism is excluded. The levels of 25‐hydroxyvitamin D and 1‐25‐dihydroxyvitamin D are not low enough to suggest that vitamin D deficiency is driving the impressive hypophosphatemia. What is impressive is the phosphate wasting demonstrated by the 24‐hour urine collection, consistent with paraneoplastic overproduction of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) by the benign bone tumor. Overproduction of this protein can be detected by blood tests or staining of the tumor specimen, but surgery should be performed as soon as possible independent of any further test results. Once the tumor is resected, phosphate metabolism should normalize.

FGF23 level was 266 RU/mL (NR < 180). The patient was diagnosed with tumor‐induced osteomalacia (TIO). He underwent complete resection of the femoral tumor as well as open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture. After surgery, his symptoms of pain and subjective muscle weakness improved, his serum phosphate level normalized, his need for phosphate supplementation resolved, and his blood levels of FGF23 decreased into the normal range (111 RU/mL). The rapid improvement of his symptoms after surgery suggested that they were related to TIO, and not manifestations of SLE or RA. His immunosuppressant medications were discontinued. Surgical pathology demonstrated a heterogeneous tumor consisting of sheets of uniform spindle cells interspersed with mature adipose tissue. This was diagnosed descriptively as a benign spindle cell and lipomatous neoplasm without further classification. Two months later, the patient was ambulating without pain, and muscle strength was subjectively normal.

DISCUSSION

TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome affecting phosphate and vitamin D metabolism, leading to hypophosphatemia and osteomalacia.[1] TIO is caused by the inappropriate tumor secretion of the phosphatonin hormone, FGF23.

The normal physiology of FGF23 is illustrated in Figure 2. Osteocytes appear to be the primary source of FGF23, but the regulation of FGF23 production is not completely understood. FGF23 production may be influenced by several factors, including 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D levels, and serum phosphate and PTH concentrations. This hormone binds to the FGF receptor and its coreceptor, Klotho,[2] causing 2 major physiological effects. First, it decreases the expression of the sodium‐phosphate cotransporters in the renal proximal tubular cells,[3, 4] resulting in increased tubular phosphate wasting. This effect appears to be partly PTH dependent.[5] Second, it has effects on vitamin D metabolism, decreasing renal production of activated vitamin D.[3, 4, 6]

Figure 2
Summary of normal FGF23 physiology. FGF23 is produced by bone osteocytes, and its production is stimulated by serum phosphate and 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D. FGF23 has 2 major actions at the level of the kidney: (1) it downregulates the sodium‐phosphate cotransporter (NaPi‐2a) in the distal convoluted tubule, and (2) it downregulates the production of 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by 1 alpha‐hydroxylase. In addition, FGF23 is thought to decrease active 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D by inducing renal Cyp24a1, the enzyme that deactivates 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D (not shown). The resulting phosphaturia and decreased intestinal absorption of phosphate lead to lower serum phosphate concentrations. Klotho is a cofactor that increases receptor affinity for FGF23. Abbreviations: Ca, calcium; FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23; PO4, phosphate.

In overproduction states, the elevated FGF23 leads to chronically low serum phosphate levels (with renal phosphate wasting) and the clinical syndrome of osteomalacia, manifested by bone pain, fractures, and deformities. Hypophosphatemia can also lead to painful proximal myopathy, cardiorespiratory dysfunction, and a spectrum of neuropsychiatric findings. The clinical findings in TIO are similar to those seen in genetic diseases in which hypophosphatemia results from the same mechanism.[3, 4]

In this case, measurement of the serum phosphate level was important in reaching the diagnosis. Although hypophosphatemia in the hospitalized patient is often easily explained, severe or persistent hypophosphatemia requires a focused evaluation. Causes of hypophosphatemia are categorized in Table 1.[7, 8, 9] In patients with hypophosphatemia that is not explained by the clinical situation (eg, osmotic diuresis, insulin treatment, refeeding syndrome, postparathyroidectomy, chronic diarrhea), measurement of serum calcium, PTH, and 25‐hydroxyvitamin D are used to investigate possible primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism. In addition, low‐normal or low serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D with normal PTH, normal 25‐hydroxyvitamin D stores, and normal renal function are clues to the presence of TIO. Urine phosphate wasting can be measured by collecting a 24‐hour urine sample. Calculation of the TmP/GFR (a measure of the maximum tubular resorption of phosphate relative to the glomerular filtration rate), as described by the nomogram of Walton and Bijvoet, may improve the accuracy of this assessment and confirm a renal source of the hypophosphatemia.[10]

Major Causes of Hypophosphatemia
  • NOTE: TPN, total parenteral nutrition. *Alcoholism causes hypophosphatemia via multiple mechanisms, including poor intake/absorption, internal redistribution, and renal effects.

Internal redistribution
Insulin or catecholamine effect (including that related to refeeding syndrome, and infusion of glucose or TPN)
Acute respiratory alkalosis
Accelerated bone formation or rapid cell proliferation (eg, hungry bone syndrome, leukemic blast crisis, erythropoietin, or granulocyte colony stimulating factor administration)
Decreased absorption
Poor intake (including that seen in alcoholism*)
Vitamin D deficiency
Gastrointestinal losses (eg, chronic diarrhea)
Malabsorption (eg, phosphate‐binding antacids)
Urinary losses
Osmotic diuresis (eg, poorly controlled diabetes, acetazolamide) or volume expansion
Other diuretics: thiazides, indapamide
Hyperparathyroidism
Primary
Secondary (including vitamin D or calcium deficiency)
Parathyroid hormone‐related peptide
Renal tubular disease
Medications (eg, ethanol,* high‐dose glucocorticoids, cisplatin, bisphosphonates, estrogens, imatinib, acyclovir)
Fanconi syndrome
Medications inducing Fanconi syndrome: tenofovir, cidofovir, adefovir, aminoglycosides, ifosfamide, tetracyclines, valproic acid
Other (eg, postrenal transplant)
Excessive phosphatonin hormone activity (eg, hereditary syndromes [rickets], tumor‐induced osteomalacia)
Multifactorial causes
Alcoholism*
Acetaminophen toxicity
Parenteral iron administration

The patient presented here had inappropriate urinary phosphate losses, and laboratory testing ruled out primary and secondary hyperparathyroidism and Fanconi syndrome. The patient was not taking medications known to cause tubular phosphate wasting. The patient's age and clinical history made hereditary syndromes unlikely. Therefore, the urinary phosphate wasting had to be related to an acquired defect in phosphate metabolism. The diagnostic characteristics of TIO are summarized in Table 2.

Diagnostic Features of Tumor‐Induced Osteomalacia
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FGF23, fibroblast growth factor 23.

Patients may present with symptoms of osteomalacia (eg, bone pain, fractures), hypophosphatemia (eg, proximal myopathy), and/or neoplasm.
Hypophosphatemia with urinary phosphate wasting.
Serum calcium level is usually normal.
Serum 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D level is usually low or low‐normal.
Parathyroid hormone is usually normal.
Plasma FGF23 level is elevated.
A neoplasm with the appropriate histology is identified, although the osteomalacia syndrome may precede identification of the tumor, which may be occult.
The syndrome resolves after complete resection of the tumor.

The presence of a known neoplasm makes the diagnosis of TIO considerably easier. However, osteomalacia often precedes the tumor diagnosis. In these cases, the discovery of this clinical syndrome necessitates a search for the tumor. The tumors can be small, occult, and often located in the extremities. In addition to standard cross‐sectional imaging, specialized diagnostic modalities can be helpful in localizing culprit tumors. These include F‐18 flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography, 111‐Indium octreotide single photon emission CT/CT, 68‐Gallium‐DOTA‐octreotide positron emission tomography with computed tomography, and even selective venous sampling for FGF23 levels.[1, 11] The octreotide tests capitalize on the fact that culprit tumors often express somatostatin receptors.

TIO is most often associated with mesenchymal tumors of the bone or soft tissue. It has also been reported in association with several malignancies (small cell carcinoma, hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer), and with polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, neurofibromatosis, and the epidermal nevus syndrome. The mesenchymal tumors are heterogeneous in appearance and can be variably classified as hemangiopericytomas, hemangiomas, sarcomas, ossifying fibromas, granulomas, giant cell tumors, or osteoblastomas.[1] However, 1 review suggests that most of these tumors actually represent a distinct but heterogeneous, under‐recognized entity that is best classified as a phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor.[11]

TIO is only cured by complete resection of the tumor.[1] Local recurrences have been described, as have rare occurrences of metastatic disease.[1, 12] Medical treatment can be used to normalize serum phosphate levels in patients who are unable to be cured by surgery. The goal is to bring serum phosphate into the low‐normal range via phosphate supplementation (typically 13 g/day of elemental phosphorus is required) and treatment with either calcitriol or alfacalcidol. Due to the inhibition of 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D activation in TIO, relatively large doses of calcitriol are needed. A reasonable starting dose of calcitriol is 1.5 g/day, and most patients require 15 to 60 ng/kg per day. Because PTH action is involved in FGF23‐mediated hypophosphatemia, suppression of PTH may also be useful in these patients.[13]

This patient presented with a painful femoral tumor in the setting of muscle and joint pain that had been erroneously attributed to connective tissue disease. However, recognition and thorough evaluation of the patient's hypophosphatemia led to a unifying diagnosis of TIO. This diagnosis altered the surgical approach (emphasizing complete resection to eradicate the FGF23 production) and helped alleviate the patient's painful losses of phosphate.

TEACHING POINTS

  1. Hypophosphatemia, especially if severe or persistent, should not be dismissed as an unimportant laboratory finding. A focused evaluation should be performed to determine the etiology.
  2. In patients with unexplained hypophosphatemia, the measurement of serum calcium, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels can identify primary or secondary hyperparathyroidism.
  3. The differential diagnosis of hypophosphatemia is narrowed if there is clinical evidence of inappropriate urinary phosphate wasting (ie, urinary phosphate levels remain high, despite low serum levels).
  4. TIO is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome caused by FGF23, a phosphatonin hormone that causes renal phosphate wasting, hypophosphatemia, and osteomalacia.

Disclosure: Nothing to report.

References
  1. Chong WH, Molinolo AA, Chen CC, Collins MT. Tumor‐induced osteomalacia. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011;18:R53R77.
  2. Razzaque MS. The FGF23‐Klotho axis: endocrine regulation of phosphate homeostasis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5:611619.
  3. Prié D, Friedlander G. Genetic disorders of renal phosphate transport. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:23992409.
  4. Carpenter TO. The expanding family of hypophosphatemic syndromes. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30:19.
  5. Gupta A, Winer K, Econs MJ, Marx SJ, Collins MT. FGF‐23 is elevated by chronic hyperphosphatemia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:44894492.
  6. Shimada T, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki Y, et al. FGF‐23 is a potent regulator of vitamin D metabolism and phosphate homeostasis. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:429435.
  7. Gaasbeek A, Meinders AE. Hypophosphatemia: an update on its etiology and treatment. Am J Med. 2005;118:10941101.
  8. Bringhurst FR, Demay MB, Kronenberg HM. In: Melmed S, Polonsky KS, Larsen PR, Kronenberg HM, eds. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 12th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2011:12371304.
  9. Liamis G, Milionis HJ, Elisaf M. Medication‐induced hypophosphatemia: a review. QJM. 2010;103:449459.
  10. Walton RJ, Bijvoet OL. Nomogram for derivation of renal threshold phosphate concentration. Lancet. 1975;2:309310.
  11. Clifton‐Bligh RJ, Hofman MS, Duncan E, et al. Improving diagnosis of tumor‐induced osteomalacia with gallium‐68 DOTATATE PET/CT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98:687694.
  12. Folpe AL, Fanburg‐Smith JC, Billings SD, et al. Most osteomalacia‐associated mesenchymal tumors are a single histopathologic entity: an analysis of 32 cases and a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:130.
  13. Geller JL, Khosravi A, Kelly MH, Riminucci M, Adams JS, Collins MT. Cinacalcet in the management of tumor‐induced osteomalacia. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:931937.
References
  1. Chong WH, Molinolo AA, Chen CC, Collins MT. Tumor‐induced osteomalacia. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011;18:R53R77.
  2. Razzaque MS. The FGF23‐Klotho axis: endocrine regulation of phosphate homeostasis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5:611619.
  3. Prié D, Friedlander G. Genetic disorders of renal phosphate transport. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:23992409.
  4. Carpenter TO. The expanding family of hypophosphatemic syndromes. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30:19.
  5. Gupta A, Winer K, Econs MJ, Marx SJ, Collins MT. FGF‐23 is elevated by chronic hyperphosphatemia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:44894492.
  6. Shimada T, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki Y, et al. FGF‐23 is a potent regulator of vitamin D metabolism and phosphate homeostasis. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:429435.
  7. Gaasbeek A, Meinders AE. Hypophosphatemia: an update on its etiology and treatment. Am J Med. 2005;118:10941101.
  8. Bringhurst FR, Demay MB, Kronenberg HM. In: Melmed S, Polonsky KS, Larsen PR, Kronenberg HM, eds. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 12th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2011:12371304.
  9. Liamis G, Milionis HJ, Elisaf M. Medication‐induced hypophosphatemia: a review. QJM. 2010;103:449459.
  10. Walton RJ, Bijvoet OL. Nomogram for derivation of renal threshold phosphate concentration. Lancet. 1975;2:309310.
  11. Clifton‐Bligh RJ, Hofman MS, Duncan E, et al. Improving diagnosis of tumor‐induced osteomalacia with gallium‐68 DOTATATE PET/CT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98:687694.
  12. Folpe AL, Fanburg‐Smith JC, Billings SD, et al. Most osteomalacia‐associated mesenchymal tumors are a single histopathologic entity: an analysis of 32 cases and a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:130.
  13. Geller JL, Khosravi A, Kelly MH, Riminucci M, Adams JS, Collins MT. Cinacalcet in the management of tumor‐induced osteomalacia. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:931937.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(10)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(10)
Page Number
730-734
Page Number
730-734
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Painful losses
Display Headline
Painful losses
Sections
Article Source
© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: David H. Wesorick, MD, Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3119 Taubman Center, SPC 5376, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐53761; Telephone: 734‐647‐3519; Fax: 734 615‐ 8401; E‐mail: davidwes@med.umich.edu
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Perioperative statins: More than lipid-lowering?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 11:15
Display Headline
Perioperative statins: More than lipid-lowering?

Soon, the checklist for internists seeing patients about to undergo surgery may include prescribing one of the lipid-lowering hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors, also called statins.

Statins? Not long ago, we were debating whether patients who take statins should stop taking them before surgery, based on the manufacturers’ recommendations.1 The discussion, however, has changed to whether patients who have never received a statin should be started on one before surgery to provide immediate prophylaxis against cardiac morbidity, and how much harm long-term statin users face if these drugs are withheld perioperatively.

The evidence is still very preliminary and based mostly on studies in animals and retrospective studies in people. However, an expanding body of indirect evidence suggests that these drugs are beneficial in this situation.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms by which statins may protect the heart in the short term, drawing on data from animal and human studies of acute myocardial infarction, and we review the current (albeit limited) data from the perioperative setting.

FEW INTERVENTIONS DECREASE RISK

Each year, approximately 50,000 patients suffer a perioperative cardiovascular event; the incidence of myocardial infarction during or after noncardiac surgery is 2% to 3%.2 The primary goal of preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment is to predict and avert these events.

But short of canceling surgery, few interventions have been found to reduce a patient’s risk. For example, a landmark study in 2004 cast doubt on the efficacy of preoperative coronary revascularization.3 Similarly, although early studies of beta-blockers were promising4,5 and although most internists prescribe these drugs before surgery, more recent studies have cast doubt on their efficacy, particularly in patients at low risk undergoing intermediate-risk (rather than vascular) surgery.6–8

This changing clinical landscape has prompted a search for new strategies for perioperative risk-reduction. Several recent studies have placed statins in the spotlight.

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS OF SHORT-TERM BENEFIT

Statins have been proven to save lives when used long-term, but how could this class of drugs, designed to prevent the accumulation of arterial plaques by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, have any short-term impact on operative outcomes? Although LDL-C reduction is the principal mechanism of action of statins, not all of the benefit can be ascribed to this mechanism.9 The answer may lie in their “pleiotropic” effects—ie, actions other than LDL-C reduction.

The more immediate pleiotropic effects of statins in the proinflammatory and prothrombotic environment of the perioperative period are thought to include improved endothelial function (both antithrombotic function and vasomotor function in response to ischemic stress), enhanced stability of atherosclerotic plaques, decreased oxidative stress, and decreased vascular inflammation.10–12

EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES

Experiments in animals suggest that statins, given shortly before or after a cardiovascular event, confer benefit before any changes in LDL-C are measurable.

Lefer et al13 found that simvastatin (Zocor), given 18 hours before an ischemic episode in rats, blunted the inflammatory response in cardiac reperfusion injury. Not only was reperfusion injury significantly less in the hearts of the rats that received simvastatin than in the saline control group, but the simvastatin-treated hearts also expressed fewer neutrophil adhesion molecules such as P-selectin, and they had more basal release of nitric oxide, the potent endothelial-derived vasodilator with antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and antiproliferative effects.14 These results suggest that statins may improve endothelial function acutely, particularly during ischemic stress.

Osborne et al15 fed rabbits a cholesterol-rich diet plus either lovastatin (Mevacor) or placebo. After 2 weeks, the rabbits underwent either surgery to induce a myocardial infarction or a sham procedure. Regardless of the pretreatment, biopsies of the aorta did not reveal any atherosclerosis; yet the lovastatin-treated rabbits sustained less myocardial ischemic damage and they had more endothelium-mediated vasodilatation.

Statin therapy also may improve cerebral ischemia outcomes in animal models.14,16

Sironi et al16 induced strokes in rats by occluding the middle cerebral artery. The rats received either simvastatin or vehicle for 3 days before the stroke or immediately afterwards. Even though simvastatin did not have enough time to affect the total cholesterol level, rats treated with simvastatin had smaller infarcts (as measured by magnetic resonance imaging) and produced more nitric oxide.

Comment. Taken together, these studies offer tantalizing evidence that statins have short-term, beneficial nonlipid effects and may reduce not only the likelihood of an ischemic event, but—should one occur—the degree of tissue damage that ensues.

 

 

EFFECTS OF STATINS IN ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME

The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction17 is a prospective, observational database of all patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 1,230 participating hospitals throughout the United States. In an analysis from this cohort, patients were divided into four groups: those receiving statins before and after admission, those receiving statins only before admission, those receiving statins only after admission, and those who never received statins.

Compared with those who never received statins, fewer patients who received them both before and after admission died while in the hospital (unadjusted odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22–0.25), and the odds ratio for those who received statins for the first time was 0.31 (95% CI 0.29–0.33). Patients who stopped receiving a statin on admission were more likely to die than were patients who never received statins (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.03–1.15). These trends held true even when adjustments were made for potential confounding factors.

Comment. Unmeasured confounding factors (such as the inability to take pills due to altered mental status or the different practice styles of the providers who chose to discontinue statins) might have affected the results. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the protective effects of statins stop almost immediately when these drugs are discontinued, and that there may even be an adverse “rebound” effect when patients who have been taking these drugs for a long time stop taking them temporarily.

The Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management trial,18 in a subgroup analysis, had nearly identical findings. In the main part of this trial, patients with coronary artery disease and chest pain at rest or accelerating pain in the last 24 hours were randomized to receive tirofiban (Aggrastat) or heparin. Complete data on statin use were available for 1,616 (50%) of the 3,232 patients in this trial, and the rate of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia) was analyzed on the basis of statin therapy in this subgroup.

The rate of the combined end point was significantly lower at 48 hours for those who had been receiving statins and continued receiving them (2.6%) than in those who never received statins (5.9%) or in those whose statins were discontinued (10.5%). Statins were more helpful if they were started before hospitalization than if they were started at the time of hospitalization.

Comment. Together, these data lead to the conclusion that, when admitted for either acute myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, patients already receiving statins should not have them stopped, and those who had not been receiving statins should receive them immediately. The safety of these medications in the acute setting appears excellent: in the Myocardial Ischemia Reduction With Acute Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL)12 and the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE-IT)11 trials, fewer than 5% of statin-treated patients had transient elevations in transaminase levels, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported.

PERIOPERATIVE STATIN STUDIES

The data on perioperative statin use are mostly observational and retrospective and fall into essentially four surgical categories: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), carotid endarterectomy,19,20 noncardiac vascular surgery, and major noncardiac surgery. Two meta-analyses have also evaluated the data.21,22 The only randomized controlled trial (performed by Durazzo et al23) was small and was carried out at a single center in vascular surgery patients, and the event rate was low.

Current recommendations from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)24 say that patients who need CABG, have peripheral arterial disease, have an abdominal aortic aneurysm, or have cerebrovascular disease should already be on a statin to achieve an LDL-C goal level of less than 100 mg/dL, with an optional goal of less than 70 mg/dL, independent of surgery.

Since not all patients who should be on statins are actually on them, questions arise:

  • Is it important (and safe) to start statin treatment preoperatively?
  • Will patients with cardiovascular risk factors but without known cardiovascular disease benefit from statins perioperatively?

Noncardiac vascular surgery

Multiple retrospective studies have evaluated the effect of statins in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery.25–32

Kertai et al25 evaluated 570 patients in Holland who underwent elective open surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms between 1991 and 2001, looking for an association between statin use and the incidence of perioperative death from myocardial infarction. Only 162 of the 570 patients had been on long-term statin therapy before the surgery. The use of statins was only one of many known baseline characteristics that were significantly different between the two groups, including age, body mass index, known coronary artery disease, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. In univariate analysis, statins appeared to be protective: 6 (3.7%) of the patients in the statin group died of a myocardial infarction, compared with 45 (11%) of those in the nostatin group. A multivariate analysis yielded similar findings, with an odds ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.11–0.54).

Ward et al27 performed a very similar retrospective study, with similar findings. In 446 patients who underwent surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the combined end point of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major peripheral vascular complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.36 (95% CI 0.14–0.93).

Poldermans et al26 noted similar findings in a case-control study of noncardiac vascular surgery patients. Statin users had a much lower perioperative risk of death than did nonusers, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI 0.10–0.47).

O’Neil-Callahan et al,28 in a cohort study, found that statin users had fewer perioperative cardiac complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.28–0.84, P = .009).

 

 

Dogma of withdrawing statins before major surgery is challenged

Le Manach et al33 reviewed the outcomes for all patients of a single hospital in Paris who underwent nonemergency infrarenal aortic procedures between January 2001 and December 2004. In January 2004, the hospital instituted guidelines to ensure that patients on statins continue taking them up to the evening before surgery and that statins be restarted on the first postoperative day (via nasogastric tube if necessary). Before 2004, there had been no specific guidelines, and patients on statins did not receive them for a median of 4 days postoperatively. Types of procedures were similar during the two time periods, as were the rates of beta-blocker use, preoperative revascularization, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and perioperative blood pressure control. After surgery, topononin I levels were measured in all patients as surveillance for cardiac events, and were defined as elevated when greater than 0.2 ng/mL.

Compared with patients not on statins at all, those treated with statins continuously throughout the perioperative period (after January 2004) had a lower rate of elevated troponin (relative risk 0.38). In contrast, those who had their statins transiently discontinued perioperatively (prior to 2004) had troponin elevations more often than those who had never been treated (relative risk 2.1). This suggested an over fivefold risk reduction (P < .001) conferred by not discontinuing statins in the immediate postoperative period. This finding was maintained after multivariate adjustment: statin withdrawal was associated with a 2.9-fold (95% CI 1.6–5.5) increase in the risk of cardiac enzyme elevations postoperatively. No fewer deaths were noted, but the study was not powered to detect a mortality difference.

Comment. Although secular trends cannot be entirely discounted as contributing to these findings, the prompt increase in cardiac events after just 4 days of statin withdrawal adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that statin discontinuation can have harmful acute effects. It also brings up the question: Can starting statins benefit patients in the same time period?

Should statins be started before vascular surgery?

Schouten et al32 evaluated the effects of newly started or continued statin treatment in patients undergoing major elective vascular surgery. Patients were screened before surgery and started on statins if they were not already receiving them and their total cholesterol levels were elevated; new users received the medication for about 40 days before surgery. Of the 981 screened patients, 44 (5%) were newly started on statins and 182 (19%) were continued on their therapy. Perioperative death or myocardial infarction occurred in 22 (8.8%) of the statin users and 111 (14.7%) of the nonusers, a statistically significant difference. Temporary discontinuation (median 1 day) of statins in this study due to the inability to take an oral medication did not appear to affect the likelihood of a myocardial infarction.

Durazzo et al23 performed a single-center, randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) 20 mg daily vs placebo in 100 patients undergoing noncardiac arterial vascular surgery. Patients were excluded if they had previously used medications to treat dyslipidemia, recently had a cardiovascular event, or had contraindications to statin treatment such as a baseline creatinine level greater than 2.0 mg/dL or severe hepatic disease. The intervention group received atorvastatin starting at least 2 weeks before surgery for a total of 45 days. Patients were then continued or started on a statin after surgery if their LDL-C level was greater than 100 mg/dL. Beta-blocker use was recommended “on the basis of current guidelines.”

One month after surgery, the LDL-C level was statistically significantly lower in the atorvastatin group. Since most patients did not continue or start statin therapy after the 45-day treatment period, the LDL-C levels were not statistically different at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

At 6 months, the rate of the primary end point (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina) was 26.0% in the placebo group and 8.0% in the atorvastatin group, a statistically significant difference. Three patients in the atorvastatin group had cardiac events in the first 10 days after surgery, compared with 11 patients in the placebo group. Thirteen of the 17 total cardiac events took place within 10 days after surgery.

One of the atorvastatin patients developed rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels.

Major noncardiac surgery

Lindenauer et al2 performed a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients who were at least 18 years old and survived beyond the second hospital day. Patients were divided into a group receiving any form of lipid-lowering treatment (of whom more than 90% were taking statins) and a group that had never never received a lipid-lowering drug or only started one on the third day of the hospitalization or later. The period of study was from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001.

In all, 780,591 patients from 329 hospitals throughout the United States were included, of whom only 77,082 (9.9%) received lipid-lowering therapy. Eight percent of the patients underwent vascular surgery. Not surprisingly, the treated patients were more likely to have a history of hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, or hyperlipidemia. They also were more likely to have a vascular procedure performed, to have two or more cardiac risk factors (high-risk surgery, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, renal insufficiency, or diabetes mellitus), and to be treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, but they were less likely to have high-risk and emergency surgery performed.

The primary end point, perioperative death, occurred in 2.13% of the treated patients and 3.05% of the nontreated group. Compared with the rate in a propensity-matched cohort, the odds ratio adjusted for unbalanced covariates was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58–0.67) in favor of lipid treatment. Stratification by cardiac risk index revealed a number needed to treat of 186 for those with no risk factors, 60 for those with two risk factors, and 30 for those with four or more risk factors.

Unfortunately, this analysis was not able to take into account whether and for how long patients were receiving lipid-lowering therapy before hospitalization. It therefore does not answer the questions of whether starting lipid-lowering therapy before surgery is beneficial or whether stopping it is harmful. It also does not shed light on whether perioperative lipid-lowering increases the risk of rhabdomyolysis or liver disease.

 

 

Carotid endarterectomy

Two recent retrospective cohort studies evaluated the outcomes in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.19,20

Kennedy et al19 found that patients on a statin at the time of admission who had symptomatic carotid disease had lower rates of inhospital death (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% CI 0.06–0.91) and ischemic stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31–0.97). However, cardiac outcomes among these symptomatic patients were not significantly improved (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.50), nor was there benefit for asymptomatic patients, raising the possibility that the positive findings were due to chance or that patients at lower baseline risk for vascular events may have less benefit.

McGirt et al20 performed a similar study; they did not, however, distinguish whether patients had symptomatic vs asymptomatic carotid disease. The 30-day risk of perioperative stroke was lower in patients treated with a statin, with an odds ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.18–0.93); the odds ratio for death was 0.21 (95% CI 0.05–0.96). Cardiac outcomes were not significantly affected.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

According to the NCEP recommendations, nearly all patients undergoing CABG should already be on a statin before surgery since they all have known coronary artery disease. Multiple observational studies have offered confirmatory evidence that statins are beneficial in this setting.34–38

Liakopoulos et al39 evaluated whether the anti-inflammatory effects of statins may, in part, account for their beneficial effect in the perioperative period. The authors prospectively matched 18 patients who were taking statins and were referred for elective CABG with 18 patients who were not prescribed statins previously. The only major measured baseline characteristic that differed between the two groups was a statistically significantly lower LDL-C level in the statin group. The operative characteristics did not differ, and cytokine levels at baseline were similar.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha levels increased significantly in the control group but did not change significantly in the statin group. Interleukin 8 increased in both groups by a similar amount. Interleukin 6 (the major inducer of C-reactive protein) increased from baseline in both groups but did not increase nearly as much in the statin group as in the control group; the intergroup difference was statistically significant. The anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin 10 increased minimally from baseline in the control group, while the statin group’s levels increased significantly above baseline and those of the control group.

Christenson40 also found that inflammatory markers were improved with pre-CABG statin treatment in a small randomized trial in which patients received simvastatin 20 mg 4 weeks prior to CABG surgery vs no statin. Interestingly, far fewer statin-treated patients developed thrombocytosis (platelet count > 400 × 109/L) than did control patients (3% vs 81%, P < .0001).

RISKS OF PERIOPERATIVE STATINS

The risks associated with statin therapy in general appear low, but specific perioperative risks have not been well studied.

Baigent et al,41 in a meta-analysis of randomized trials of nonperioperative statin therapy, found that rhabdomyolysis occurred in 9 (0.023%) of 39,884 patients receiving statins vs 6 (0.015%) of the 39,817 controls, with a number needed to harm of 12,500. Moreover, the rates of nonvascular death and cancer did not increase. It is plausible that the risk is somewhat greater in the perioperative setting but is likely not enough to outweigh the potential benefits, especially since the risk of ischemic vascular events is particularly high then.

Some of the perioperative studies cited above specifically addressed potential risks. For example, in the study by Schouten et al,32 mild creatine kinase elevations were more common in the statin-treated group, but the incidence of moderate and severe creatine kinase elevations did not differ significantly. No case of rhabdomyolysis occurred, and length of surgery was the only predictor of myopathy. MIRACL and PROVE-IT revealed similar safety profiles; aminotransferase levels normalized when statins were stopped, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis occurred.11,12 In the vascular surgery study by Durazzo et al,23 1 (2%) of the 50 atorvastatin-treated patients developed both rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels that prompted discontinuation of the statin.

Overall, the observational studies do not indicate that statin continuation or treatment is harmful in perioperative patients. However, these studies did not specifically evaluate patients with acute insults from surgery such as sepsis, renal failure, or hepatitis. It is unknown what effect statin therapy would have in those patients and whether statins should be selectively discontinued in patients who develop major hepatic, musculoskeletal, or renal complications after surgery.

 

 

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Before CABG or vascular surgery

Given the NCEP recommendations, existing primary and secondary prevention studies, observational studies of CABG and noncardiac vascular surgery patients, and the one randomized trial of vascular surgery patients, data support the use of statins in nearly all patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery. We advocate starting statins in the perioperative period to take advantage of their rapid-acting pleiotropic effects, and continuing them long-term to take advantage of their lipid-lowering effects. This recommendation is in line with the recently released American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2007 perioperative guidelines that state “for patients undergoing vascular surgery with or without clinical risk factors, statin use is reasonable.”42

Although the ideal time to start statins is not certain, the study by Durazzo et al23 suggests that they should be started at least 2 weeks before surgery if possible. Moreover, patients already taking statins should definitely not have their statins discontinued if at all possible.

Before major nonvascular surgery

For patients undergoing major nonvascular (intermediate-risk) surgery, physicians should first ascertain if the patient has an indication for statin therapy based on current nonsurgical lipid level recommendations. However, even if there is no clear indication for statin therapy based on NCEP guidelines, we endorse the recently released ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines that state that statin therapy can be considered in patients with a risk factor who are undergoing intermediate-risk procedures. Moreover, we wholeheartedly support the ACC/AHA’s strongest recommendation that patients who are already receiving statins and are undergoing noncardiac surgery should not have their statins discontinued.

When to discontinue statins?

The risk of harm overall appears to be minimal and certainly less than the likelihood of benefit. It is reasonable to observe patients postoperatively for adverse clinical events that may increase the risk of perioperative statin treatment, such as acute renal failure, hepatic failure, or sepsis, but whether statins should be stopped in patients with these complications remains unknown; we advocate individualizing the decision.

More studies needed

We need more data on whether moderate-risk patients undergoing moderate-risk surgery benefit from perioperative statin therapy, when therapy should be started, whether therapy should be started on the day of surgery if it was not started earlier, which statin and what doses are optimal, how long therapy should be continued, and what degree of risk is associated with perioperative statin therapy.

Fortunately, important data should be forthcoming in the next few years: the Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE-IV) study43 is a 4-year two-by-two factorial placebo-controlled study evaluating the use of fluvastatin (Lescol) and bisoprolol (Zebeta, a beta-blocker) separately and together in patients who are older than 40 years, are undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, have an estimated risk of cardiovascular death of more than 1%, have not used statins previously, and do not have elevated cholesterol.

References
  1. Grant PJ, Kedia N. Should statins be discontinued preoperatively? IMPACT consults. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Cleveland Clinic Perioperative Medicine Summit. Cleve Clin J Med 2006; 73 Electronic suppl 1:S9S10.
  2. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Lipid-lowering therapy and in-hospital mortality following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2004; 291:20922099.
  3. McFalls EO, Ward HB, Moritz TE, et al. Coronary-artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:27952804.
  4. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  5. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  6. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  7. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  8. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  9. Ridker PM, Cannon CP, Morrow D, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2028.
  10. Ito MK, Talbert RL, Tsimikas S. Statin-associated pleiotropy: possible beneficial effects beyond cholesterol reduction. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26:85S97S.
  11. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:14951504.
  12. Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:17111718.
  13. Lefer AM, Campbell B, Shin YK, Scalia R, Hayward R, Lefer DJ. Simvastatin preserves the ischemic-reperfused myocardium in normocholesterolemic rat hearts. Circulation 1999; 100:178184.
  14. Endres M, Laufs U, Liao JK, Moskowitz MA. Targeting eNOS for stroke protection. Trends Neurosci 2004; 27:283289.
  15. Osborne JA, Lento PH, Siegfried MR, Stahl GL, Fusman B, Lefer AM. Cardiovascular effects of acute hypercholesterolemia in rabbits. Reversal with lovastatin treatment. J Clin Invest 1989; 83:465473.
  16. Sironi L, Cimino M, Guerrini U, et al. Treatment with statins after induction of focal ischemia in rats reduces the extent of brain damage. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003; 23:322327.
  17. Fonarow GC, Wright RS, Spencer FA, et al. Effect of statin use within the first 24 hours of admission for acute myocardial infarction on early morbidity and mortality. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:611616.
  18. Heeschen C, Hamm CW, Laufs U, Snapinn S, Bohm M, White HD. Withdrawal of statins increases event rates in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2002; 105:14461452.
  19. Kennedy J, Quan H, Buchan AM, Ghali WA, Feasby TE. Statins are associated with better outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients. Stroke 2005; 36:20722076.
  20. McGirt MJ, Perler BA, Brooke BS, et al. 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors reduce the risk of perioperative stroke and mortality after carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 2005; 42:829836.
  21. Hindler K, Shaw AD, Samuels J, Fulton S, Collard CD, Riedel B. Improved postoperative outcomes associated with preoperative statin therapy. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:12601272.
  22. Kapoor AS, Kanji H, Buckingham J, Devereaux PJ, McAlister FA. Strength of evidence for perioperative use of statins to reduce cardiovascular risk: systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2006; 333:1149.
  23. Durazzo AE, Machado FS, Ikeoka DT, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events after vascular surgery with atorvastatin: a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:967975.
  24. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004; 110:227239.
  25. Kertai MD, Boersma E, Westerhout CM, et al. A combination of statins and beta-blockers is independently associated with a reduction in the incidence of perioperative mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 28:343352.
  26. Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Kertai MD, et al. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 107:18481851.
  27. Ward RP, Leeper NJ, Kirkpatrick JN, Lang RM, Sorrentino MJ, Williams KA. The effect of preoperative statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing infrainguinal vascular surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 104:264268.
  28. O’Neil-Callahan K, Katsimaglis G, Tepper MR, et al. Statins decrease perioperative cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery: the Statins for Risk Reduction in Surgery (StaRRS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:336342.
  29. Abbruzzese TA, Havens J, Belkin M, et al. Statin therapy is associated with improved patency of autogenous infrainguinal bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:11781185.
  30. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al. Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  31. Landesberg G, Mosseri M, Wolf YG, et al. Preoperative thallium scanning, selective coronary revascularization, and long-term survival after major vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 108:177183.
  32. Schouten O, Kertai MD, Bax JJ, et al. Safety of perioperative statin use in high-risk patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:658660.
  33. Le Manach Y, Godet G, Coriat P, et al. The impact of postoperative discontinuation or continuation of chronic statin therapy on cardiac outcome after major vascular surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:13261333.
  34. Ali IS, Buth KJ. Preoperative statin use and outcomes following cardiac surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 103:1218.
  35. Clark LL, Ikonomidis JS, Crawford FA, et al. Preoperative statin treatment is associated with reduced postoperative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an 8-year retrospective cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131:679685.
  36. Pan W, Pintar T, Anton J, Lee VV, Vaughn WK, Collard CD. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2004; 110(suppl 2):II45II49.
  37. Pascual DA, Arribas JM, Tornel PL, et al. Preoperative statin therapy and troponin T predict early complications of coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81:7883.
  38. Dotani MI, Elnicki DM, Jain AC, Gibson CM. Effect of preoperative statin therapy and cardiac outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:11281130.
  39. Liakopoulos OJ, Dorge H, Schmitto JD, Nagorsnik U, Grabedunkel J, Schoendube FA. Effects of preoperative statin therapy on cytokines after cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 54:250254.
  40. Christenson JT. Preoperative lipid-control with simvastatin reduces the risk of postoperative thrombocytosis and thrombotic complications following CABG. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 15:394399.
  41. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005; 366:12671278.
  42. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). Circulation 2007; 116:e418e499.
  43. Schouten O, Poldermans D, Visser L, et al. Fluvastatin and bisoprolol for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: rationale and design of the DECREASE-IV study. Am Heart J 2004; 148:10471052.
  44. Amar D, Zhang H, Heerdt PM, Park B, Fleisher M, Thaler HT. Statin use is associated with a reduction in atrial fibrillation after noncardiac thoracic surgery independent of C-reactive protein. Chest 2005; 128:34213427.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Leonard S. Feldman, MD
Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Daniel J. Brotman, MD
Director, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Address: Daniel J. Brotman, MD, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Park 307, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287; e-mail brotman@jhmi.edu

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
654-662
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Leonard S. Feldman, MD
Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Daniel J. Brotman, MD
Director, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Address: Daniel J. Brotman, MD, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Park 307, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287; e-mail brotman@jhmi.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Leonard S. Feldman, MD
Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Daniel J. Brotman, MD
Director, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD

Address: Daniel J. Brotman, MD, Hospitalist Program, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Park 307, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287; e-mail brotman@jhmi.edu

Article PDF
Article PDF

Soon, the checklist for internists seeing patients about to undergo surgery may include prescribing one of the lipid-lowering hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors, also called statins.

Statins? Not long ago, we were debating whether patients who take statins should stop taking them before surgery, based on the manufacturers’ recommendations.1 The discussion, however, has changed to whether patients who have never received a statin should be started on one before surgery to provide immediate prophylaxis against cardiac morbidity, and how much harm long-term statin users face if these drugs are withheld perioperatively.

The evidence is still very preliminary and based mostly on studies in animals and retrospective studies in people. However, an expanding body of indirect evidence suggests that these drugs are beneficial in this situation.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms by which statins may protect the heart in the short term, drawing on data from animal and human studies of acute myocardial infarction, and we review the current (albeit limited) data from the perioperative setting.

FEW INTERVENTIONS DECREASE RISK

Each year, approximately 50,000 patients suffer a perioperative cardiovascular event; the incidence of myocardial infarction during or after noncardiac surgery is 2% to 3%.2 The primary goal of preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment is to predict and avert these events.

But short of canceling surgery, few interventions have been found to reduce a patient’s risk. For example, a landmark study in 2004 cast doubt on the efficacy of preoperative coronary revascularization.3 Similarly, although early studies of beta-blockers were promising4,5 and although most internists prescribe these drugs before surgery, more recent studies have cast doubt on their efficacy, particularly in patients at low risk undergoing intermediate-risk (rather than vascular) surgery.6–8

This changing clinical landscape has prompted a search for new strategies for perioperative risk-reduction. Several recent studies have placed statins in the spotlight.

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS OF SHORT-TERM BENEFIT

Statins have been proven to save lives when used long-term, but how could this class of drugs, designed to prevent the accumulation of arterial plaques by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, have any short-term impact on operative outcomes? Although LDL-C reduction is the principal mechanism of action of statins, not all of the benefit can be ascribed to this mechanism.9 The answer may lie in their “pleiotropic” effects—ie, actions other than LDL-C reduction.

The more immediate pleiotropic effects of statins in the proinflammatory and prothrombotic environment of the perioperative period are thought to include improved endothelial function (both antithrombotic function and vasomotor function in response to ischemic stress), enhanced stability of atherosclerotic plaques, decreased oxidative stress, and decreased vascular inflammation.10–12

EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES

Experiments in animals suggest that statins, given shortly before or after a cardiovascular event, confer benefit before any changes in LDL-C are measurable.

Lefer et al13 found that simvastatin (Zocor), given 18 hours before an ischemic episode in rats, blunted the inflammatory response in cardiac reperfusion injury. Not only was reperfusion injury significantly less in the hearts of the rats that received simvastatin than in the saline control group, but the simvastatin-treated hearts also expressed fewer neutrophil adhesion molecules such as P-selectin, and they had more basal release of nitric oxide, the potent endothelial-derived vasodilator with antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and antiproliferative effects.14 These results suggest that statins may improve endothelial function acutely, particularly during ischemic stress.

Osborne et al15 fed rabbits a cholesterol-rich diet plus either lovastatin (Mevacor) or placebo. After 2 weeks, the rabbits underwent either surgery to induce a myocardial infarction or a sham procedure. Regardless of the pretreatment, biopsies of the aorta did not reveal any atherosclerosis; yet the lovastatin-treated rabbits sustained less myocardial ischemic damage and they had more endothelium-mediated vasodilatation.

Statin therapy also may improve cerebral ischemia outcomes in animal models.14,16

Sironi et al16 induced strokes in rats by occluding the middle cerebral artery. The rats received either simvastatin or vehicle for 3 days before the stroke or immediately afterwards. Even though simvastatin did not have enough time to affect the total cholesterol level, rats treated with simvastatin had smaller infarcts (as measured by magnetic resonance imaging) and produced more nitric oxide.

Comment. Taken together, these studies offer tantalizing evidence that statins have short-term, beneficial nonlipid effects and may reduce not only the likelihood of an ischemic event, but—should one occur—the degree of tissue damage that ensues.

 

 

EFFECTS OF STATINS IN ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME

The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction17 is a prospective, observational database of all patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 1,230 participating hospitals throughout the United States. In an analysis from this cohort, patients were divided into four groups: those receiving statins before and after admission, those receiving statins only before admission, those receiving statins only after admission, and those who never received statins.

Compared with those who never received statins, fewer patients who received them both before and after admission died while in the hospital (unadjusted odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22–0.25), and the odds ratio for those who received statins for the first time was 0.31 (95% CI 0.29–0.33). Patients who stopped receiving a statin on admission were more likely to die than were patients who never received statins (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.03–1.15). These trends held true even when adjustments were made for potential confounding factors.

Comment. Unmeasured confounding factors (such as the inability to take pills due to altered mental status or the different practice styles of the providers who chose to discontinue statins) might have affected the results. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the protective effects of statins stop almost immediately when these drugs are discontinued, and that there may even be an adverse “rebound” effect when patients who have been taking these drugs for a long time stop taking them temporarily.

The Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management trial,18 in a subgroup analysis, had nearly identical findings. In the main part of this trial, patients with coronary artery disease and chest pain at rest or accelerating pain in the last 24 hours were randomized to receive tirofiban (Aggrastat) or heparin. Complete data on statin use were available for 1,616 (50%) of the 3,232 patients in this trial, and the rate of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia) was analyzed on the basis of statin therapy in this subgroup.

The rate of the combined end point was significantly lower at 48 hours for those who had been receiving statins and continued receiving them (2.6%) than in those who never received statins (5.9%) or in those whose statins were discontinued (10.5%). Statins were more helpful if they were started before hospitalization than if they were started at the time of hospitalization.

Comment. Together, these data lead to the conclusion that, when admitted for either acute myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, patients already receiving statins should not have them stopped, and those who had not been receiving statins should receive them immediately. The safety of these medications in the acute setting appears excellent: in the Myocardial Ischemia Reduction With Acute Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL)12 and the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE-IT)11 trials, fewer than 5% of statin-treated patients had transient elevations in transaminase levels, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported.

PERIOPERATIVE STATIN STUDIES

The data on perioperative statin use are mostly observational and retrospective and fall into essentially four surgical categories: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), carotid endarterectomy,19,20 noncardiac vascular surgery, and major noncardiac surgery. Two meta-analyses have also evaluated the data.21,22 The only randomized controlled trial (performed by Durazzo et al23) was small and was carried out at a single center in vascular surgery patients, and the event rate was low.

Current recommendations from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)24 say that patients who need CABG, have peripheral arterial disease, have an abdominal aortic aneurysm, or have cerebrovascular disease should already be on a statin to achieve an LDL-C goal level of less than 100 mg/dL, with an optional goal of less than 70 mg/dL, independent of surgery.

Since not all patients who should be on statins are actually on them, questions arise:

  • Is it important (and safe) to start statin treatment preoperatively?
  • Will patients with cardiovascular risk factors but without known cardiovascular disease benefit from statins perioperatively?

Noncardiac vascular surgery

Multiple retrospective studies have evaluated the effect of statins in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery.25–32

Kertai et al25 evaluated 570 patients in Holland who underwent elective open surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms between 1991 and 2001, looking for an association between statin use and the incidence of perioperative death from myocardial infarction. Only 162 of the 570 patients had been on long-term statin therapy before the surgery. The use of statins was only one of many known baseline characteristics that were significantly different between the two groups, including age, body mass index, known coronary artery disease, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. In univariate analysis, statins appeared to be protective: 6 (3.7%) of the patients in the statin group died of a myocardial infarction, compared with 45 (11%) of those in the nostatin group. A multivariate analysis yielded similar findings, with an odds ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.11–0.54).

Ward et al27 performed a very similar retrospective study, with similar findings. In 446 patients who underwent surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the combined end point of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major peripheral vascular complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.36 (95% CI 0.14–0.93).

Poldermans et al26 noted similar findings in a case-control study of noncardiac vascular surgery patients. Statin users had a much lower perioperative risk of death than did nonusers, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI 0.10–0.47).

O’Neil-Callahan et al,28 in a cohort study, found that statin users had fewer perioperative cardiac complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.28–0.84, P = .009).

 

 

Dogma of withdrawing statins before major surgery is challenged

Le Manach et al33 reviewed the outcomes for all patients of a single hospital in Paris who underwent nonemergency infrarenal aortic procedures between January 2001 and December 2004. In January 2004, the hospital instituted guidelines to ensure that patients on statins continue taking them up to the evening before surgery and that statins be restarted on the first postoperative day (via nasogastric tube if necessary). Before 2004, there had been no specific guidelines, and patients on statins did not receive them for a median of 4 days postoperatively. Types of procedures were similar during the two time periods, as were the rates of beta-blocker use, preoperative revascularization, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and perioperative blood pressure control. After surgery, topononin I levels were measured in all patients as surveillance for cardiac events, and were defined as elevated when greater than 0.2 ng/mL.

Compared with patients not on statins at all, those treated with statins continuously throughout the perioperative period (after January 2004) had a lower rate of elevated troponin (relative risk 0.38). In contrast, those who had their statins transiently discontinued perioperatively (prior to 2004) had troponin elevations more often than those who had never been treated (relative risk 2.1). This suggested an over fivefold risk reduction (P < .001) conferred by not discontinuing statins in the immediate postoperative period. This finding was maintained after multivariate adjustment: statin withdrawal was associated with a 2.9-fold (95% CI 1.6–5.5) increase in the risk of cardiac enzyme elevations postoperatively. No fewer deaths were noted, but the study was not powered to detect a mortality difference.

Comment. Although secular trends cannot be entirely discounted as contributing to these findings, the prompt increase in cardiac events after just 4 days of statin withdrawal adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that statin discontinuation can have harmful acute effects. It also brings up the question: Can starting statins benefit patients in the same time period?

Should statins be started before vascular surgery?

Schouten et al32 evaluated the effects of newly started or continued statin treatment in patients undergoing major elective vascular surgery. Patients were screened before surgery and started on statins if they were not already receiving them and their total cholesterol levels were elevated; new users received the medication for about 40 days before surgery. Of the 981 screened patients, 44 (5%) were newly started on statins and 182 (19%) were continued on their therapy. Perioperative death or myocardial infarction occurred in 22 (8.8%) of the statin users and 111 (14.7%) of the nonusers, a statistically significant difference. Temporary discontinuation (median 1 day) of statins in this study due to the inability to take an oral medication did not appear to affect the likelihood of a myocardial infarction.

Durazzo et al23 performed a single-center, randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) 20 mg daily vs placebo in 100 patients undergoing noncardiac arterial vascular surgery. Patients were excluded if they had previously used medications to treat dyslipidemia, recently had a cardiovascular event, or had contraindications to statin treatment such as a baseline creatinine level greater than 2.0 mg/dL or severe hepatic disease. The intervention group received atorvastatin starting at least 2 weeks before surgery for a total of 45 days. Patients were then continued or started on a statin after surgery if their LDL-C level was greater than 100 mg/dL. Beta-blocker use was recommended “on the basis of current guidelines.”

One month after surgery, the LDL-C level was statistically significantly lower in the atorvastatin group. Since most patients did not continue or start statin therapy after the 45-day treatment period, the LDL-C levels were not statistically different at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

At 6 months, the rate of the primary end point (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina) was 26.0% in the placebo group and 8.0% in the atorvastatin group, a statistically significant difference. Three patients in the atorvastatin group had cardiac events in the first 10 days after surgery, compared with 11 patients in the placebo group. Thirteen of the 17 total cardiac events took place within 10 days after surgery.

One of the atorvastatin patients developed rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels.

Major noncardiac surgery

Lindenauer et al2 performed a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients who were at least 18 years old and survived beyond the second hospital day. Patients were divided into a group receiving any form of lipid-lowering treatment (of whom more than 90% were taking statins) and a group that had never never received a lipid-lowering drug or only started one on the third day of the hospitalization or later. The period of study was from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001.

In all, 780,591 patients from 329 hospitals throughout the United States were included, of whom only 77,082 (9.9%) received lipid-lowering therapy. Eight percent of the patients underwent vascular surgery. Not surprisingly, the treated patients were more likely to have a history of hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, or hyperlipidemia. They also were more likely to have a vascular procedure performed, to have two or more cardiac risk factors (high-risk surgery, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, renal insufficiency, or diabetes mellitus), and to be treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, but they were less likely to have high-risk and emergency surgery performed.

The primary end point, perioperative death, occurred in 2.13% of the treated patients and 3.05% of the nontreated group. Compared with the rate in a propensity-matched cohort, the odds ratio adjusted for unbalanced covariates was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58–0.67) in favor of lipid treatment. Stratification by cardiac risk index revealed a number needed to treat of 186 for those with no risk factors, 60 for those with two risk factors, and 30 for those with four or more risk factors.

Unfortunately, this analysis was not able to take into account whether and for how long patients were receiving lipid-lowering therapy before hospitalization. It therefore does not answer the questions of whether starting lipid-lowering therapy before surgery is beneficial or whether stopping it is harmful. It also does not shed light on whether perioperative lipid-lowering increases the risk of rhabdomyolysis or liver disease.

 

 

Carotid endarterectomy

Two recent retrospective cohort studies evaluated the outcomes in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.19,20

Kennedy et al19 found that patients on a statin at the time of admission who had symptomatic carotid disease had lower rates of inhospital death (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% CI 0.06–0.91) and ischemic stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31–0.97). However, cardiac outcomes among these symptomatic patients were not significantly improved (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.50), nor was there benefit for asymptomatic patients, raising the possibility that the positive findings were due to chance or that patients at lower baseline risk for vascular events may have less benefit.

McGirt et al20 performed a similar study; they did not, however, distinguish whether patients had symptomatic vs asymptomatic carotid disease. The 30-day risk of perioperative stroke was lower in patients treated with a statin, with an odds ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.18–0.93); the odds ratio for death was 0.21 (95% CI 0.05–0.96). Cardiac outcomes were not significantly affected.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

According to the NCEP recommendations, nearly all patients undergoing CABG should already be on a statin before surgery since they all have known coronary artery disease. Multiple observational studies have offered confirmatory evidence that statins are beneficial in this setting.34–38

Liakopoulos et al39 evaluated whether the anti-inflammatory effects of statins may, in part, account for their beneficial effect in the perioperative period. The authors prospectively matched 18 patients who were taking statins and were referred for elective CABG with 18 patients who were not prescribed statins previously. The only major measured baseline characteristic that differed between the two groups was a statistically significantly lower LDL-C level in the statin group. The operative characteristics did not differ, and cytokine levels at baseline were similar.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha levels increased significantly in the control group but did not change significantly in the statin group. Interleukin 8 increased in both groups by a similar amount. Interleukin 6 (the major inducer of C-reactive protein) increased from baseline in both groups but did not increase nearly as much in the statin group as in the control group; the intergroup difference was statistically significant. The anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin 10 increased minimally from baseline in the control group, while the statin group’s levels increased significantly above baseline and those of the control group.

Christenson40 also found that inflammatory markers were improved with pre-CABG statin treatment in a small randomized trial in which patients received simvastatin 20 mg 4 weeks prior to CABG surgery vs no statin. Interestingly, far fewer statin-treated patients developed thrombocytosis (platelet count > 400 × 109/L) than did control patients (3% vs 81%, P < .0001).

RISKS OF PERIOPERATIVE STATINS

The risks associated with statin therapy in general appear low, but specific perioperative risks have not been well studied.

Baigent et al,41 in a meta-analysis of randomized trials of nonperioperative statin therapy, found that rhabdomyolysis occurred in 9 (0.023%) of 39,884 patients receiving statins vs 6 (0.015%) of the 39,817 controls, with a number needed to harm of 12,500. Moreover, the rates of nonvascular death and cancer did not increase. It is plausible that the risk is somewhat greater in the perioperative setting but is likely not enough to outweigh the potential benefits, especially since the risk of ischemic vascular events is particularly high then.

Some of the perioperative studies cited above specifically addressed potential risks. For example, in the study by Schouten et al,32 mild creatine kinase elevations were more common in the statin-treated group, but the incidence of moderate and severe creatine kinase elevations did not differ significantly. No case of rhabdomyolysis occurred, and length of surgery was the only predictor of myopathy. MIRACL and PROVE-IT revealed similar safety profiles; aminotransferase levels normalized when statins were stopped, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis occurred.11,12 In the vascular surgery study by Durazzo et al,23 1 (2%) of the 50 atorvastatin-treated patients developed both rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels that prompted discontinuation of the statin.

Overall, the observational studies do not indicate that statin continuation or treatment is harmful in perioperative patients. However, these studies did not specifically evaluate patients with acute insults from surgery such as sepsis, renal failure, or hepatitis. It is unknown what effect statin therapy would have in those patients and whether statins should be selectively discontinued in patients who develop major hepatic, musculoskeletal, or renal complications after surgery.

 

 

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Before CABG or vascular surgery

Given the NCEP recommendations, existing primary and secondary prevention studies, observational studies of CABG and noncardiac vascular surgery patients, and the one randomized trial of vascular surgery patients, data support the use of statins in nearly all patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery. We advocate starting statins in the perioperative period to take advantage of their rapid-acting pleiotropic effects, and continuing them long-term to take advantage of their lipid-lowering effects. This recommendation is in line with the recently released American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2007 perioperative guidelines that state “for patients undergoing vascular surgery with or without clinical risk factors, statin use is reasonable.”42

Although the ideal time to start statins is not certain, the study by Durazzo et al23 suggests that they should be started at least 2 weeks before surgery if possible. Moreover, patients already taking statins should definitely not have their statins discontinued if at all possible.

Before major nonvascular surgery

For patients undergoing major nonvascular (intermediate-risk) surgery, physicians should first ascertain if the patient has an indication for statin therapy based on current nonsurgical lipid level recommendations. However, even if there is no clear indication for statin therapy based on NCEP guidelines, we endorse the recently released ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines that state that statin therapy can be considered in patients with a risk factor who are undergoing intermediate-risk procedures. Moreover, we wholeheartedly support the ACC/AHA’s strongest recommendation that patients who are already receiving statins and are undergoing noncardiac surgery should not have their statins discontinued.

When to discontinue statins?

The risk of harm overall appears to be minimal and certainly less than the likelihood of benefit. It is reasonable to observe patients postoperatively for adverse clinical events that may increase the risk of perioperative statin treatment, such as acute renal failure, hepatic failure, or sepsis, but whether statins should be stopped in patients with these complications remains unknown; we advocate individualizing the decision.

More studies needed

We need more data on whether moderate-risk patients undergoing moderate-risk surgery benefit from perioperative statin therapy, when therapy should be started, whether therapy should be started on the day of surgery if it was not started earlier, which statin and what doses are optimal, how long therapy should be continued, and what degree of risk is associated with perioperative statin therapy.

Fortunately, important data should be forthcoming in the next few years: the Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE-IV) study43 is a 4-year two-by-two factorial placebo-controlled study evaluating the use of fluvastatin (Lescol) and bisoprolol (Zebeta, a beta-blocker) separately and together in patients who are older than 40 years, are undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, have an estimated risk of cardiovascular death of more than 1%, have not used statins previously, and do not have elevated cholesterol.

Soon, the checklist for internists seeing patients about to undergo surgery may include prescribing one of the lipid-lowering hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors, also called statins.

Statins? Not long ago, we were debating whether patients who take statins should stop taking them before surgery, based on the manufacturers’ recommendations.1 The discussion, however, has changed to whether patients who have never received a statin should be started on one before surgery to provide immediate prophylaxis against cardiac morbidity, and how much harm long-term statin users face if these drugs are withheld perioperatively.

The evidence is still very preliminary and based mostly on studies in animals and retrospective studies in people. However, an expanding body of indirect evidence suggests that these drugs are beneficial in this situation.

In this review, we discuss the mechanisms by which statins may protect the heart in the short term, drawing on data from animal and human studies of acute myocardial infarction, and we review the current (albeit limited) data from the perioperative setting.

FEW INTERVENTIONS DECREASE RISK

Each year, approximately 50,000 patients suffer a perioperative cardiovascular event; the incidence of myocardial infarction during or after noncardiac surgery is 2% to 3%.2 The primary goal of preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment is to predict and avert these events.

But short of canceling surgery, few interventions have been found to reduce a patient’s risk. For example, a landmark study in 2004 cast doubt on the efficacy of preoperative coronary revascularization.3 Similarly, although early studies of beta-blockers were promising4,5 and although most internists prescribe these drugs before surgery, more recent studies have cast doubt on their efficacy, particularly in patients at low risk undergoing intermediate-risk (rather than vascular) surgery.6–8

This changing clinical landscape has prompted a search for new strategies for perioperative risk-reduction. Several recent studies have placed statins in the spotlight.

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS OF SHORT-TERM BENEFIT

Statins have been proven to save lives when used long-term, but how could this class of drugs, designed to prevent the accumulation of arterial plaques by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, have any short-term impact on operative outcomes? Although LDL-C reduction is the principal mechanism of action of statins, not all of the benefit can be ascribed to this mechanism.9 The answer may lie in their “pleiotropic” effects—ie, actions other than LDL-C reduction.

The more immediate pleiotropic effects of statins in the proinflammatory and prothrombotic environment of the perioperative period are thought to include improved endothelial function (both antithrombotic function and vasomotor function in response to ischemic stress), enhanced stability of atherosclerotic plaques, decreased oxidative stress, and decreased vascular inflammation.10–12

EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES

Experiments in animals suggest that statins, given shortly before or after a cardiovascular event, confer benefit before any changes in LDL-C are measurable.

Lefer et al13 found that simvastatin (Zocor), given 18 hours before an ischemic episode in rats, blunted the inflammatory response in cardiac reperfusion injury. Not only was reperfusion injury significantly less in the hearts of the rats that received simvastatin than in the saline control group, but the simvastatin-treated hearts also expressed fewer neutrophil adhesion molecules such as P-selectin, and they had more basal release of nitric oxide, the potent endothelial-derived vasodilator with antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and antiproliferative effects.14 These results suggest that statins may improve endothelial function acutely, particularly during ischemic stress.

Osborne et al15 fed rabbits a cholesterol-rich diet plus either lovastatin (Mevacor) or placebo. After 2 weeks, the rabbits underwent either surgery to induce a myocardial infarction or a sham procedure. Regardless of the pretreatment, biopsies of the aorta did not reveal any atherosclerosis; yet the lovastatin-treated rabbits sustained less myocardial ischemic damage and they had more endothelium-mediated vasodilatation.

Statin therapy also may improve cerebral ischemia outcomes in animal models.14,16

Sironi et al16 induced strokes in rats by occluding the middle cerebral artery. The rats received either simvastatin or vehicle for 3 days before the stroke or immediately afterwards. Even though simvastatin did not have enough time to affect the total cholesterol level, rats treated with simvastatin had smaller infarcts (as measured by magnetic resonance imaging) and produced more nitric oxide.

Comment. Taken together, these studies offer tantalizing evidence that statins have short-term, beneficial nonlipid effects and may reduce not only the likelihood of an ischemic event, but—should one occur—the degree of tissue damage that ensues.

 

 

EFFECTS OF STATINS IN ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME

The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction17 is a prospective, observational database of all patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 1,230 participating hospitals throughout the United States. In an analysis from this cohort, patients were divided into four groups: those receiving statins before and after admission, those receiving statins only before admission, those receiving statins only after admission, and those who never received statins.

Compared with those who never received statins, fewer patients who received them both before and after admission died while in the hospital (unadjusted odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22–0.25), and the odds ratio for those who received statins for the first time was 0.31 (95% CI 0.29–0.33). Patients who stopped receiving a statin on admission were more likely to die than were patients who never received statins (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.03–1.15). These trends held true even when adjustments were made for potential confounding factors.

Comment. Unmeasured confounding factors (such as the inability to take pills due to altered mental status or the different practice styles of the providers who chose to discontinue statins) might have affected the results. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the protective effects of statins stop almost immediately when these drugs are discontinued, and that there may even be an adverse “rebound” effect when patients who have been taking these drugs for a long time stop taking them temporarily.

The Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management trial,18 in a subgroup analysis, had nearly identical findings. In the main part of this trial, patients with coronary artery disease and chest pain at rest or accelerating pain in the last 24 hours were randomized to receive tirofiban (Aggrastat) or heparin. Complete data on statin use were available for 1,616 (50%) of the 3,232 patients in this trial, and the rate of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent ischemia) was analyzed on the basis of statin therapy in this subgroup.

The rate of the combined end point was significantly lower at 48 hours for those who had been receiving statins and continued receiving them (2.6%) than in those who never received statins (5.9%) or in those whose statins were discontinued (10.5%). Statins were more helpful if they were started before hospitalization than if they were started at the time of hospitalization.

Comment. Together, these data lead to the conclusion that, when admitted for either acute myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, patients already receiving statins should not have them stopped, and those who had not been receiving statins should receive them immediately. The safety of these medications in the acute setting appears excellent: in the Myocardial Ischemia Reduction With Acute Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL)12 and the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE-IT)11 trials, fewer than 5% of statin-treated patients had transient elevations in transaminase levels, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported.

PERIOPERATIVE STATIN STUDIES

The data on perioperative statin use are mostly observational and retrospective and fall into essentially four surgical categories: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), carotid endarterectomy,19,20 noncardiac vascular surgery, and major noncardiac surgery. Two meta-analyses have also evaluated the data.21,22 The only randomized controlled trial (performed by Durazzo et al23) was small and was carried out at a single center in vascular surgery patients, and the event rate was low.

Current recommendations from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)24 say that patients who need CABG, have peripheral arterial disease, have an abdominal aortic aneurysm, or have cerebrovascular disease should already be on a statin to achieve an LDL-C goal level of less than 100 mg/dL, with an optional goal of less than 70 mg/dL, independent of surgery.

Since not all patients who should be on statins are actually on them, questions arise:

  • Is it important (and safe) to start statin treatment preoperatively?
  • Will patients with cardiovascular risk factors but without known cardiovascular disease benefit from statins perioperatively?

Noncardiac vascular surgery

Multiple retrospective studies have evaluated the effect of statins in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery.25–32

Kertai et al25 evaluated 570 patients in Holland who underwent elective open surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms between 1991 and 2001, looking for an association between statin use and the incidence of perioperative death from myocardial infarction. Only 162 of the 570 patients had been on long-term statin therapy before the surgery. The use of statins was only one of many known baseline characteristics that were significantly different between the two groups, including age, body mass index, known coronary artery disease, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. In univariate analysis, statins appeared to be protective: 6 (3.7%) of the patients in the statin group died of a myocardial infarction, compared with 45 (11%) of those in the nostatin group. A multivariate analysis yielded similar findings, with an odds ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.11–0.54).

Ward et al27 performed a very similar retrospective study, with similar findings. In 446 patients who underwent surgery for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the combined end point of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major peripheral vascular complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.36 (95% CI 0.14–0.93).

Poldermans et al26 noted similar findings in a case-control study of noncardiac vascular surgery patients. Statin users had a much lower perioperative risk of death than did nonusers, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI 0.10–0.47).

O’Neil-Callahan et al,28 in a cohort study, found that statin users had fewer perioperative cardiac complications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.28–0.84, P = .009).

 

 

Dogma of withdrawing statins before major surgery is challenged

Le Manach et al33 reviewed the outcomes for all patients of a single hospital in Paris who underwent nonemergency infrarenal aortic procedures between January 2001 and December 2004. In January 2004, the hospital instituted guidelines to ensure that patients on statins continue taking them up to the evening before surgery and that statins be restarted on the first postoperative day (via nasogastric tube if necessary). Before 2004, there had been no specific guidelines, and patients on statins did not receive them for a median of 4 days postoperatively. Types of procedures were similar during the two time periods, as were the rates of beta-blocker use, preoperative revascularization, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and perioperative blood pressure control. After surgery, topononin I levels were measured in all patients as surveillance for cardiac events, and were defined as elevated when greater than 0.2 ng/mL.

Compared with patients not on statins at all, those treated with statins continuously throughout the perioperative period (after January 2004) had a lower rate of elevated troponin (relative risk 0.38). In contrast, those who had their statins transiently discontinued perioperatively (prior to 2004) had troponin elevations more often than those who had never been treated (relative risk 2.1). This suggested an over fivefold risk reduction (P < .001) conferred by not discontinuing statins in the immediate postoperative period. This finding was maintained after multivariate adjustment: statin withdrawal was associated with a 2.9-fold (95% CI 1.6–5.5) increase in the risk of cardiac enzyme elevations postoperatively. No fewer deaths were noted, but the study was not powered to detect a mortality difference.

Comment. Although secular trends cannot be entirely discounted as contributing to these findings, the prompt increase in cardiac events after just 4 days of statin withdrawal adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that statin discontinuation can have harmful acute effects. It also brings up the question: Can starting statins benefit patients in the same time period?

Should statins be started before vascular surgery?

Schouten et al32 evaluated the effects of newly started or continued statin treatment in patients undergoing major elective vascular surgery. Patients were screened before surgery and started on statins if they were not already receiving them and their total cholesterol levels were elevated; new users received the medication for about 40 days before surgery. Of the 981 screened patients, 44 (5%) were newly started on statins and 182 (19%) were continued on their therapy. Perioperative death or myocardial infarction occurred in 22 (8.8%) of the statin users and 111 (14.7%) of the nonusers, a statistically significant difference. Temporary discontinuation (median 1 day) of statins in this study due to the inability to take an oral medication did not appear to affect the likelihood of a myocardial infarction.

Durazzo et al23 performed a single-center, randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) 20 mg daily vs placebo in 100 patients undergoing noncardiac arterial vascular surgery. Patients were excluded if they had previously used medications to treat dyslipidemia, recently had a cardiovascular event, or had contraindications to statin treatment such as a baseline creatinine level greater than 2.0 mg/dL or severe hepatic disease. The intervention group received atorvastatin starting at least 2 weeks before surgery for a total of 45 days. Patients were then continued or started on a statin after surgery if their LDL-C level was greater than 100 mg/dL. Beta-blocker use was recommended “on the basis of current guidelines.”

One month after surgery, the LDL-C level was statistically significantly lower in the atorvastatin group. Since most patients did not continue or start statin therapy after the 45-day treatment period, the LDL-C levels were not statistically different at 3 and 6 months after surgery.

At 6 months, the rate of the primary end point (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina) was 26.0% in the placebo group and 8.0% in the atorvastatin group, a statistically significant difference. Three patients in the atorvastatin group had cardiac events in the first 10 days after surgery, compared with 11 patients in the placebo group. Thirteen of the 17 total cardiac events took place within 10 days after surgery.

One of the atorvastatin patients developed rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels.

Major noncardiac surgery

Lindenauer et al2 performed a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients who were at least 18 years old and survived beyond the second hospital day. Patients were divided into a group receiving any form of lipid-lowering treatment (of whom more than 90% were taking statins) and a group that had never never received a lipid-lowering drug or only started one on the third day of the hospitalization or later. The period of study was from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001.

In all, 780,591 patients from 329 hospitals throughout the United States were included, of whom only 77,082 (9.9%) received lipid-lowering therapy. Eight percent of the patients underwent vascular surgery. Not surprisingly, the treated patients were more likely to have a history of hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, or hyperlipidemia. They also were more likely to have a vascular procedure performed, to have two or more cardiac risk factors (high-risk surgery, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, renal insufficiency, or diabetes mellitus), and to be treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, but they were less likely to have high-risk and emergency surgery performed.

The primary end point, perioperative death, occurred in 2.13% of the treated patients and 3.05% of the nontreated group. Compared with the rate in a propensity-matched cohort, the odds ratio adjusted for unbalanced covariates was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58–0.67) in favor of lipid treatment. Stratification by cardiac risk index revealed a number needed to treat of 186 for those with no risk factors, 60 for those with two risk factors, and 30 for those with four or more risk factors.

Unfortunately, this analysis was not able to take into account whether and for how long patients were receiving lipid-lowering therapy before hospitalization. It therefore does not answer the questions of whether starting lipid-lowering therapy before surgery is beneficial or whether stopping it is harmful. It also does not shed light on whether perioperative lipid-lowering increases the risk of rhabdomyolysis or liver disease.

 

 

Carotid endarterectomy

Two recent retrospective cohort studies evaluated the outcomes in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.19,20

Kennedy et al19 found that patients on a statin at the time of admission who had symptomatic carotid disease had lower rates of inhospital death (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% CI 0.06–0.91) and ischemic stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31–0.97). However, cardiac outcomes among these symptomatic patients were not significantly improved (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.50), nor was there benefit for asymptomatic patients, raising the possibility that the positive findings were due to chance or that patients at lower baseline risk for vascular events may have less benefit.

McGirt et al20 performed a similar study; they did not, however, distinguish whether patients had symptomatic vs asymptomatic carotid disease. The 30-day risk of perioperative stroke was lower in patients treated with a statin, with an odds ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.18–0.93); the odds ratio for death was 0.21 (95% CI 0.05–0.96). Cardiac outcomes were not significantly affected.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

According to the NCEP recommendations, nearly all patients undergoing CABG should already be on a statin before surgery since they all have known coronary artery disease. Multiple observational studies have offered confirmatory evidence that statins are beneficial in this setting.34–38

Liakopoulos et al39 evaluated whether the anti-inflammatory effects of statins may, in part, account for their beneficial effect in the perioperative period. The authors prospectively matched 18 patients who were taking statins and were referred for elective CABG with 18 patients who were not prescribed statins previously. The only major measured baseline characteristic that differed between the two groups was a statistically significantly lower LDL-C level in the statin group. The operative characteristics did not differ, and cytokine levels at baseline were similar.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha levels increased significantly in the control group but did not change significantly in the statin group. Interleukin 8 increased in both groups by a similar amount. Interleukin 6 (the major inducer of C-reactive protein) increased from baseline in both groups but did not increase nearly as much in the statin group as in the control group; the intergroup difference was statistically significant. The anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin 10 increased minimally from baseline in the control group, while the statin group’s levels increased significantly above baseline and those of the control group.

Christenson40 also found that inflammatory markers were improved with pre-CABG statin treatment in a small randomized trial in which patients received simvastatin 20 mg 4 weeks prior to CABG surgery vs no statin. Interestingly, far fewer statin-treated patients developed thrombocytosis (platelet count > 400 × 109/L) than did control patients (3% vs 81%, P < .0001).

RISKS OF PERIOPERATIVE STATINS

The risks associated with statin therapy in general appear low, but specific perioperative risks have not been well studied.

Baigent et al,41 in a meta-analysis of randomized trials of nonperioperative statin therapy, found that rhabdomyolysis occurred in 9 (0.023%) of 39,884 patients receiving statins vs 6 (0.015%) of the 39,817 controls, with a number needed to harm of 12,500. Moreover, the rates of nonvascular death and cancer did not increase. It is plausible that the risk is somewhat greater in the perioperative setting but is likely not enough to outweigh the potential benefits, especially since the risk of ischemic vascular events is particularly high then.

Some of the perioperative studies cited above specifically addressed potential risks. For example, in the study by Schouten et al,32 mild creatine kinase elevations were more common in the statin-treated group, but the incidence of moderate and severe creatine kinase elevations did not differ significantly. No case of rhabdomyolysis occurred, and length of surgery was the only predictor of myopathy. MIRACL and PROVE-IT revealed similar safety profiles; aminotransferase levels normalized when statins were stopped, and no cases of rhabdomyolysis occurred.11,12 In the vascular surgery study by Durazzo et al,23 1 (2%) of the 50 atorvastatin-treated patients developed both rhabdomyolysis and elevated aminotransferase levels that prompted discontinuation of the statin.

Overall, the observational studies do not indicate that statin continuation or treatment is harmful in perioperative patients. However, these studies did not specifically evaluate patients with acute insults from surgery such as sepsis, renal failure, or hepatitis. It is unknown what effect statin therapy would have in those patients and whether statins should be selectively discontinued in patients who develop major hepatic, musculoskeletal, or renal complications after surgery.

 

 

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Before CABG or vascular surgery

Given the NCEP recommendations, existing primary and secondary prevention studies, observational studies of CABG and noncardiac vascular surgery patients, and the one randomized trial of vascular surgery patients, data support the use of statins in nearly all patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery. We advocate starting statins in the perioperative period to take advantage of their rapid-acting pleiotropic effects, and continuing them long-term to take advantage of their lipid-lowering effects. This recommendation is in line with the recently released American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2007 perioperative guidelines that state “for patients undergoing vascular surgery with or without clinical risk factors, statin use is reasonable.”42

Although the ideal time to start statins is not certain, the study by Durazzo et al23 suggests that they should be started at least 2 weeks before surgery if possible. Moreover, patients already taking statins should definitely not have their statins discontinued if at all possible.

Before major nonvascular surgery

For patients undergoing major nonvascular (intermediate-risk) surgery, physicians should first ascertain if the patient has an indication for statin therapy based on current nonsurgical lipid level recommendations. However, even if there is no clear indication for statin therapy based on NCEP guidelines, we endorse the recently released ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines that state that statin therapy can be considered in patients with a risk factor who are undergoing intermediate-risk procedures. Moreover, we wholeheartedly support the ACC/AHA’s strongest recommendation that patients who are already receiving statins and are undergoing noncardiac surgery should not have their statins discontinued.

When to discontinue statins?

The risk of harm overall appears to be minimal and certainly less than the likelihood of benefit. It is reasonable to observe patients postoperatively for adverse clinical events that may increase the risk of perioperative statin treatment, such as acute renal failure, hepatic failure, or sepsis, but whether statins should be stopped in patients with these complications remains unknown; we advocate individualizing the decision.

More studies needed

We need more data on whether moderate-risk patients undergoing moderate-risk surgery benefit from perioperative statin therapy, when therapy should be started, whether therapy should be started on the day of surgery if it was not started earlier, which statin and what doses are optimal, how long therapy should be continued, and what degree of risk is associated with perioperative statin therapy.

Fortunately, important data should be forthcoming in the next few years: the Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE-IV) study43 is a 4-year two-by-two factorial placebo-controlled study evaluating the use of fluvastatin (Lescol) and bisoprolol (Zebeta, a beta-blocker) separately and together in patients who are older than 40 years, are undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, have an estimated risk of cardiovascular death of more than 1%, have not used statins previously, and do not have elevated cholesterol.

References
  1. Grant PJ, Kedia N. Should statins be discontinued preoperatively? IMPACT consults. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Cleveland Clinic Perioperative Medicine Summit. Cleve Clin J Med 2006; 73 Electronic suppl 1:S9S10.
  2. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Lipid-lowering therapy and in-hospital mortality following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2004; 291:20922099.
  3. McFalls EO, Ward HB, Moritz TE, et al. Coronary-artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:27952804.
  4. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  5. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  6. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  7. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  8. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  9. Ridker PM, Cannon CP, Morrow D, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2028.
  10. Ito MK, Talbert RL, Tsimikas S. Statin-associated pleiotropy: possible beneficial effects beyond cholesterol reduction. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26:85S97S.
  11. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:14951504.
  12. Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:17111718.
  13. Lefer AM, Campbell B, Shin YK, Scalia R, Hayward R, Lefer DJ. Simvastatin preserves the ischemic-reperfused myocardium in normocholesterolemic rat hearts. Circulation 1999; 100:178184.
  14. Endres M, Laufs U, Liao JK, Moskowitz MA. Targeting eNOS for stroke protection. Trends Neurosci 2004; 27:283289.
  15. Osborne JA, Lento PH, Siegfried MR, Stahl GL, Fusman B, Lefer AM. Cardiovascular effects of acute hypercholesterolemia in rabbits. Reversal with lovastatin treatment. J Clin Invest 1989; 83:465473.
  16. Sironi L, Cimino M, Guerrini U, et al. Treatment with statins after induction of focal ischemia in rats reduces the extent of brain damage. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003; 23:322327.
  17. Fonarow GC, Wright RS, Spencer FA, et al. Effect of statin use within the first 24 hours of admission for acute myocardial infarction on early morbidity and mortality. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:611616.
  18. Heeschen C, Hamm CW, Laufs U, Snapinn S, Bohm M, White HD. Withdrawal of statins increases event rates in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2002; 105:14461452.
  19. Kennedy J, Quan H, Buchan AM, Ghali WA, Feasby TE. Statins are associated with better outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients. Stroke 2005; 36:20722076.
  20. McGirt MJ, Perler BA, Brooke BS, et al. 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors reduce the risk of perioperative stroke and mortality after carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 2005; 42:829836.
  21. Hindler K, Shaw AD, Samuels J, Fulton S, Collard CD, Riedel B. Improved postoperative outcomes associated with preoperative statin therapy. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:12601272.
  22. Kapoor AS, Kanji H, Buckingham J, Devereaux PJ, McAlister FA. Strength of evidence for perioperative use of statins to reduce cardiovascular risk: systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2006; 333:1149.
  23. Durazzo AE, Machado FS, Ikeoka DT, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events after vascular surgery with atorvastatin: a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:967975.
  24. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004; 110:227239.
  25. Kertai MD, Boersma E, Westerhout CM, et al. A combination of statins and beta-blockers is independently associated with a reduction in the incidence of perioperative mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 28:343352.
  26. Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Kertai MD, et al. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 107:18481851.
  27. Ward RP, Leeper NJ, Kirkpatrick JN, Lang RM, Sorrentino MJ, Williams KA. The effect of preoperative statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing infrainguinal vascular surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 104:264268.
  28. O’Neil-Callahan K, Katsimaglis G, Tepper MR, et al. Statins decrease perioperative cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery: the Statins for Risk Reduction in Surgery (StaRRS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:336342.
  29. Abbruzzese TA, Havens J, Belkin M, et al. Statin therapy is associated with improved patency of autogenous infrainguinal bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:11781185.
  30. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al. Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  31. Landesberg G, Mosseri M, Wolf YG, et al. Preoperative thallium scanning, selective coronary revascularization, and long-term survival after major vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 108:177183.
  32. Schouten O, Kertai MD, Bax JJ, et al. Safety of perioperative statin use in high-risk patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:658660.
  33. Le Manach Y, Godet G, Coriat P, et al. The impact of postoperative discontinuation or continuation of chronic statin therapy on cardiac outcome after major vascular surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:13261333.
  34. Ali IS, Buth KJ. Preoperative statin use and outcomes following cardiac surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 103:1218.
  35. Clark LL, Ikonomidis JS, Crawford FA, et al. Preoperative statin treatment is associated with reduced postoperative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an 8-year retrospective cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131:679685.
  36. Pan W, Pintar T, Anton J, Lee VV, Vaughn WK, Collard CD. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2004; 110(suppl 2):II45II49.
  37. Pascual DA, Arribas JM, Tornel PL, et al. Preoperative statin therapy and troponin T predict early complications of coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81:7883.
  38. Dotani MI, Elnicki DM, Jain AC, Gibson CM. Effect of preoperative statin therapy and cardiac outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:11281130.
  39. Liakopoulos OJ, Dorge H, Schmitto JD, Nagorsnik U, Grabedunkel J, Schoendube FA. Effects of preoperative statin therapy on cytokines after cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 54:250254.
  40. Christenson JT. Preoperative lipid-control with simvastatin reduces the risk of postoperative thrombocytosis and thrombotic complications following CABG. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 15:394399.
  41. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005; 366:12671278.
  42. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). Circulation 2007; 116:e418e499.
  43. Schouten O, Poldermans D, Visser L, et al. Fluvastatin and bisoprolol for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: rationale and design of the DECREASE-IV study. Am Heart J 2004; 148:10471052.
  44. Amar D, Zhang H, Heerdt PM, Park B, Fleisher M, Thaler HT. Statin use is associated with a reduction in atrial fibrillation after noncardiac thoracic surgery independent of C-reactive protein. Chest 2005; 128:34213427.
References
  1. Grant PJ, Kedia N. Should statins be discontinued preoperatively? IMPACT consults. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Cleveland Clinic Perioperative Medicine Summit. Cleve Clin J Med 2006; 73 Electronic suppl 1:S9S10.
  2. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Lipid-lowering therapy and in-hospital mortality following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2004; 291:20922099.
  3. McFalls EO, Ward HB, Moritz TE, et al. Coronary-artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:27952804.
  4. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  5. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  6. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  7. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  8. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  9. Ridker PM, Cannon CP, Morrow D, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2028.
  10. Ito MK, Talbert RL, Tsimikas S. Statin-associated pleiotropy: possible beneficial effects beyond cholesterol reduction. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26:85S97S.
  11. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:14951504.
  12. Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:17111718.
  13. Lefer AM, Campbell B, Shin YK, Scalia R, Hayward R, Lefer DJ. Simvastatin preserves the ischemic-reperfused myocardium in normocholesterolemic rat hearts. Circulation 1999; 100:178184.
  14. Endres M, Laufs U, Liao JK, Moskowitz MA. Targeting eNOS for stroke protection. Trends Neurosci 2004; 27:283289.
  15. Osborne JA, Lento PH, Siegfried MR, Stahl GL, Fusman B, Lefer AM. Cardiovascular effects of acute hypercholesterolemia in rabbits. Reversal with lovastatin treatment. J Clin Invest 1989; 83:465473.
  16. Sironi L, Cimino M, Guerrini U, et al. Treatment with statins after induction of focal ischemia in rats reduces the extent of brain damage. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003; 23:322327.
  17. Fonarow GC, Wright RS, Spencer FA, et al. Effect of statin use within the first 24 hours of admission for acute myocardial infarction on early morbidity and mortality. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:611616.
  18. Heeschen C, Hamm CW, Laufs U, Snapinn S, Bohm M, White HD. Withdrawal of statins increases event rates in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2002; 105:14461452.
  19. Kennedy J, Quan H, Buchan AM, Ghali WA, Feasby TE. Statins are associated with better outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients. Stroke 2005; 36:20722076.
  20. McGirt MJ, Perler BA, Brooke BS, et al. 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors reduce the risk of perioperative stroke and mortality after carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 2005; 42:829836.
  21. Hindler K, Shaw AD, Samuels J, Fulton S, Collard CD, Riedel B. Improved postoperative outcomes associated with preoperative statin therapy. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:12601272.
  22. Kapoor AS, Kanji H, Buckingham J, Devereaux PJ, McAlister FA. Strength of evidence for perioperative use of statins to reduce cardiovascular risk: systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2006; 333:1149.
  23. Durazzo AE, Machado FS, Ikeoka DT, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events after vascular surgery with atorvastatin: a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:967975.
  24. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004; 110:227239.
  25. Kertai MD, Boersma E, Westerhout CM, et al. A combination of statins and beta-blockers is independently associated with a reduction in the incidence of perioperative mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004; 28:343352.
  26. Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Kertai MD, et al. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing major noncardiac vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 107:18481851.
  27. Ward RP, Leeper NJ, Kirkpatrick JN, Lang RM, Sorrentino MJ, Williams KA. The effect of preoperative statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing infrainguinal vascular surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 104:264268.
  28. O’Neil-Callahan K, Katsimaglis G, Tepper MR, et al. Statins decrease perioperative cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery: the Statins for Risk Reduction in Surgery (StaRRS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:336342.
  29. Abbruzzese TA, Havens J, Belkin M, et al. Statin therapy is associated with improved patency of autogenous infrainguinal bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39:11781185.
  30. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al. Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  31. Landesberg G, Mosseri M, Wolf YG, et al. Preoperative thallium scanning, selective coronary revascularization, and long-term survival after major vascular surgery. Circulation 2003; 108:177183.
  32. Schouten O, Kertai MD, Bax JJ, et al. Safety of perioperative statin use in high-risk patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:658660.
  33. Le Manach Y, Godet G, Coriat P, et al. The impact of postoperative discontinuation or continuation of chronic statin therapy on cardiac outcome after major vascular surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:13261333.
  34. Ali IS, Buth KJ. Preoperative statin use and outcomes following cardiac surgery. Int J Cardiol 2005; 103:1218.
  35. Clark LL, Ikonomidis JS, Crawford FA, et al. Preoperative statin treatment is associated with reduced postoperative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an 8-year retrospective cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131:679685.
  36. Pan W, Pintar T, Anton J, Lee VV, Vaughn WK, Collard CD. Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2004; 110(suppl 2):II45II49.
  37. Pascual DA, Arribas JM, Tornel PL, et al. Preoperative statin therapy and troponin T predict early complications of coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81:7883.
  38. Dotani MI, Elnicki DM, Jain AC, Gibson CM. Effect of preoperative statin therapy and cardiac outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:11281130.
  39. Liakopoulos OJ, Dorge H, Schmitto JD, Nagorsnik U, Grabedunkel J, Schoendube FA. Effects of preoperative statin therapy on cytokines after cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 54:250254.
  40. Christenson JT. Preoperative lipid-control with simvastatin reduces the risk of postoperative thrombocytosis and thrombotic complications following CABG. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 15:394399.
  41. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005; 366:12671278.
  42. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). Circulation 2007; 116:e418e499.
  43. Schouten O, Poldermans D, Visser L, et al. Fluvastatin and bisoprolol for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: rationale and design of the DECREASE-IV study. Am Heart J 2004; 148:10471052.
  44. Amar D, Zhang H, Heerdt PM, Park B, Fleisher M, Thaler HT. Statin use is associated with a reduction in atrial fibrillation after noncardiac thoracic surgery independent of C-reactive protein. Chest 2005; 128:34213427.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(9)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 75(9)
Page Number
654-662
Page Number
654-662
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Perioperative statins: More than lipid-lowering?
Display Headline
Perioperative statins: More than lipid-lowering?
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Experiments in animals suggest that statins, given shortly before or after a cardiovascular event, confer benefit before any changes in lipids are measurable.
  • Retrospective and prospective studies indicate that patients with either acute myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome who are already receiving statins should not have them stopped, and those who had not been receiving statins should receive them immediately.
  • Most patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or noncardiac vascular surgery should already be receiving a statin. These drugs can also be considered in patients undergoing intermediate-risk nonvascular surgery. Patients who have been receiving statins prior to surgery should not have them stopped for surgery.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media