Anomalous coronary artery origin from the opposite sinus in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: comparison with tricuspid aortic valve

Objective

To compare the prevalence and patterns of anomalous coronary artery origin from the opposite sinus (ACAOS) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).

Methods

Retrospective review of consecutive patients with surgically excised BAV and TAV was performed from 1994 to 2015. Clinical notes, echocardiograms, coronary angiograms, CT angiographies, and pathology reports were reviewed. ACAOS included right coronary artery from the left cusp, left circumflex artery from the right cusp and left main or left anterior descending artery from the right cusp.

Results

2371 (years 1994–2015) and 1679 (years 2009–2015) consecutive patients with pathology-confirmed BAV and TAV, respectively, and defined preoperative coronary anatomy were identified. A left dominant coronary circulation was present in 386 (18%) patients with BAV and 179 (11%) patients with TAV (p<0.001). ACAOS was identified in 43 (1.8%) patients with BAV and 15 (0.9%) patients with TAV, p=0.02. Among patients with BAV and ACAOS, the most common phenotype was right-left fusion (n=34, 79%) with present raphe (n=36, 84%), with no association between BAV phenotype and ACAOS type. On multivariate analysis, BAV status and size of the mid-ascending aorta were independently associated with ACAOS (OR 3.29; CI 1.26 to 8.6; p=0.02; OR 0.93; CI 0.87 to 0.98; p=0.01; respectively). Only two patients with ACAOS, one with BAV and one with TAV, had a perioperative coronary ischaemic event.

Conclusions

The prevalence of the potentially malignant ACAOS is significantly higher (threefold higher odds) in patients with BAV as compared with TAV, yet remains uncommon in absolute terms. Most patients with BAV and ACAOS had right-left cusp fusion and present raphe. Perioperative coronary events are rare in patients with ACAOS.

The prevalence and contents of advance directives in patients with pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the use of advance directives (ADs) in patients who have implantable cardiac pacemakers (PMs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent implantation of a cardiac PM at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during 2006 and 2007, and determined the prevalence and contents of ADs in these patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 205 residents of Olmsted County (men, 53%) underwent PM implantation (mean age [standard deviation] at implantation, 77 [15] years). Overall, 120 patients (59%) had ADs. Of these, 63 ADs (53%) were executed more than 12 months before and 33 (28%) were executed after PM implantation. Many patients specifically mentioned life-prolonging treatments in their ADs: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 76 (63%); mechanical ventilation, 56 (47%); and hemodialysis, 31 (26%). Pain control was mentioned in 79 ADs (66%) and comfort measures were mentioned in 42 ADs (35%). Furthermore, the AD of many patients contained a general statement about end-of-life care (e.g., no "heroic measures"). However, only one AD (1%) specifically addressed the end-of-life management of the PM.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the patients with PMs in our study had executed an AD, but only one patient specifically mentioned her PM in her AD. These results suggest that patients with PMs should be encouraged to execute ADs and specifically address end-of-life device management in their ADs. Doing so may prevent end-of-life ethical dilemmas related to PM management.

The use of advance directives among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the prevalence of advance directives (ADs) among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and of ADs that addressed ICD management at the end of life.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who underwent ICD implantation during 2007 at a single institution were reviewed retrospectively to determine the number of patients with an AD and the number of ADs mentioning the ICD specifically (i.e. ICD management at end of life).

RESULTS

During 2007, 420 patients (males, 71%) underwent ICD implantation at our institution (mean age [range] at implantation, 63 [1-90] years). Primary prevention was the most common indication for device therapy (254 patients [61%]). Overall, 127 patients (30%) had an AD, with 83 ADs (65%) completed more than 12 months before ICD implantation and 10 (8%) completed after it. Several life-sustaining treatments were mentioned in the ADs: tube feeding, 46 (37%); cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 25 (20%); mechanical ventilation, 22 (17%); and hemodialysis, nine (7%). Pain control was mentioned in 58 ADs (46%) and comfort measures in 38 (30%). However, only two ADs (2%) mentioned the ICD or its deactivation at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

About one-third of patients with ICDs had an AD, but only a couple ADs mentioned the ICD. These results suggest that clinicians should not only encourage patients with ICDs to complete an AD, but also encourage them to address ICD management specifically. Not addressing ICD management in an AD may result in ethical dilemmas during end-of-life care.

Myocardial viability imaging and revascularization in chronic ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction

The high rate of periprocedural morbidity and mortality associated with revascularization in moderate-to-severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction has provided the rationale for noninvasive viability imaging. The most established viability imaging techniques are PET, single-photon emission computed tomography and dobutamine echocardiography. Cardiac MRI is gaining widespread use and accessibility, and computed tomography is emerging as a promising technique. Each imaging modality has unique advantages but also suffers from limitations. Furthermore, evidence of the impact of viability imaging on patient outcomes has generally been limited to observational studies. Uncertainty remains regarding the optimal treatment strategy in this patient subset. This review describes the current status of viability imaging and revascularization in chronic moderate-to-severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction.