Eric de Groot

Bio: Eric de Groot is an academic researcher from University of Amsterdam. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intima-media thickness & Familial hypercholesterolemia. The author has an hindex of 45, co-authored 105 publications receiving 8129 citations. Previous affiliations of Eric de Groot include Katholieke Universiteit Leuven & Academic Medical Center.

Simvastatin with or without Ezetimibe in Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Abstract: The primary outcome, the mean (±SE) change in the carotid-artery intima–media thickness, was 0.0058±0.0037 mm in the simvastatin-only group and 0.0111±0.0038 mm in the simvastatin-plus-ezetimibe (combined-therapy) group (P = 0.29). Secondary outcomes (consisting of other variables regarding the intima–media thickness of the carotid and femoral arteries) did not differ significantly between the two groups. At the end of the study, the mean (±SD) LDL cholesterol level was 192.7±60.3 mg per deciliter (4.98±1.56 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin group and 141.3±52.6 mg per deciliter (3.65±1.36 mmol per liter) in the combined-therapy group (a between-group difference of 16.5%, P<0.01). The differences between the two groups in reductions in levels of triglycerides and C-reactive protein were 6.6% and 25.7%, respectively, with greater reductions in the combined-therapy group (P<0.01 for both comparisons). Side-effect and safety profiles were similar in the two groups. Conclusions In patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, combined therapy with ezetimibe and simvastatin did not result in a significant difference in changes in intima–media thickness, as compared with simvastatin alone, despite decreases in levels of LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552097.)

Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients.

Abstract: Central venous cannulation is crucial in the management of the critical care patient. This study was designed to evaluate whether real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein is superior to the standard landmark method. In this randomised study, 450 critical care patients who underwent real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein were prospectively compared with 450 critical care patients in whom the landmark technique was used. Randomisation was performed by means of a computer-generated random-numbers table, and patients were stratified with regard to age, gender, and body mass index. There were no significant differences in gender, age, body mass index, or side of cannulation (left or right) or in the presence of risk factors for difficult venous cannulation such as prior catheterisation, limited sites for access attempts, previous difficulties during catheterisation, previous mechanical complication, known vascular abnormality, untreated coagulopathy, skeletal deformity, and cannulation during cardiac arrest between the two groups of patients. Furthermore, the physicians who performed the procedures had comparable experience in the placement of central venous catheters (p = non-significant). Cannulation of the internal jugular vein was achieved in all patients by using ultrasound and in 425 of the patients (94.4%) by using the landmark technique (p < 0.001). Average access time (skin to vein) and number of attempts were significantly reduced in the ultrasound group of patients compared with the landmark group (p < 0.001). In the landmark group, puncture of the carotid artery occurred in 10.6% of patients, haematoma in 8.4%, haemothorax in 1.7%, pneumothorax in 2.4%, and central venous catheter-associated blood stream infection in 16%, which were all significantly increased compared with the ultrasound group (p < 0.001). The present data suggest that ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein in critical care patients is superior to the landmark technique and therefore should be the method of choice in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in Children with familial hypercholesterolemia: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract: ContextChildren with familial hypercholesterolemia have endothelial dysfunction and increased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), which herald the premature atherosclerotic disease they develop later in life. Although intervention therapy in the causal pathway of this disorder has been available for more than a decade, the long-term efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering medication have not been evaluated in children.ObjectiveTo determine the 2-year efficacy and safety of pravastatin therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia.DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that recruited children between December 7, 1997, and October 4, 1999, and followed them up for 2 years.Setting and ParticipantsTwo hundred fourteen children with familial hypercholesterolemia, aged 8 to 18 years and recruited from an academic medical referral center in the Netherlands.InterventionAfter initiation of a fat-restricted diet and encouragement of regular physical activity, children were randomly assigned to receive treatment with pravastatin, 20 to 40 mg/d (n = 106), or a placebo tablet (n = 108).Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in mean carotid IMT compared between the 2 groups over 2 years; the principal safety outcomes were growth, maturation, and hormone level measurements over 2 years as well as changes in muscle and liver enzyme levels.ResultsCompared with baseline, carotid IMT showed a trend toward regression with pravastatin (mean [SD], −0.010 [0.048] mm; P = .049), whereas a trend toward progression was observed in the placebo group (mean [SD], +0.005 [0.044] mm; P = .28). The mean (SD) change in IMT compared between the 2 groups (0.014 [0.046] mm) was significant (P = .02). Also, pravastatin significantly reduced mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels compared with placebo (−24.1% vs +0.3%, respectively; P<.001). No differences were observed for growth, muscle or liver enzymes, endocrine function parameters, Tanner staging scores, onset of menses, or testicular volume between the 2 groups.ConclusionTwo years of pravastatin therapy induced a significant regression of carotid atherosclerosis in children with familial hypercholesterolemia, with no adverse effects on growth, sexual maturation, hormone levels, or liver or muscle tissue.

Measurement of Arterial Wall Thickness as a Surrogate Marker for Atherosclerosis

Abstract: Large observational studies and atherosclerosis regression trials of lipid-modifying pharmacotherapy have established that intima-media thickness of the carotid and femoral arteries, as measured noninvasively by B-mode ultrasound, is a valid surrogate marker for the progression of atherosclerotic disease. To exploit fully the potential of ultrasound imaging in atherosclerosis research, standardized and strictly implemented imaging protocols should be used in both observational studies and applied clinical research. This article describes such a protocol developed at the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Results are presented from a study that estimated atherosclerosis progression from childhood into old age by measuring intima-media thickness in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia compared with healthy controls.

20-Year Follow-up of Statins in Children with Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Abstract: Background Familial hypercholesterolemia is characterized by severely elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and premature cardiovascular disease. The short-term efficac...

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

Abstract: tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

Abstract: D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.