The way to a patient's heart is through their esophagus: A case of esophago-pericardial fistula.

Here in we present a 74-year-old case of esophago-pericardial fistula with pericardial effusion and pneumopericardium. Bone-related esophageal trauma was the cause of the esophago-pericardial fistula. The esophago-pericardial fistula was diagnosed with echocardiography, computerized tomography (CT) and endoscopy. Pericardiocentesis was performed for drainage the pericardial effusion. The esophago-pericardial fistula was treated with covered self-expandable esophageal stent.

The impact of cardiac rhythm on the mitral valve area and gradient in patients with mitral stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cardiac rhythm on the echocardiographic mitral valve area (MVA) and transmitral gradient calculation in relation to net atrioventricular compliance (Cn). METHODS: Patients (n=22) with mild or moderate pure rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) (MVA <2 cm2 and MVA >1 cm2) and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated. All patients underwent transthoracic electrical DC cardioversion under amiodarone treatment. Nineteen of the 22 patients were successfully converted to sinus rhythm (SR). The patients were evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography before and two to three days after DC cardioversion. In order to deal with variable R-R intervals, the measurements were averaged on five to eight consecutive beats in AF. Cn was calculated with a previously validated equation [Cn (mL/mm Hg)=1.270 x MVA/E-wave downslope]. The Cn difference between AF and SR was calculated as follows: [(AF Cn-SR Cn)/AF Cn] x 100. The percentage gradient (mean or maximal) difference between AF and SR was calculated as follows: [AF gradient (mean or maximal) - SR gradient (mean or maximal)]/[AF gradient (mean or maximal)] x 100. RESULTS: The MVA was lower (MVA planimetric; 1.62±0.29 vs. 1.54±0.27; p=.003, MVA PHT; 1.66±0.30 vs. 1.59±0.26; p=0.01) but transmitral gradient (mean gradient; 6.49±2.51 vs. 8.89±3.52; p=0.001, maximal gradient: 16.94±5.11 vs. 18.57±4.54; p=0.01) and Cn values (5.37±0.77 vs. 6.26±0.64; p<0.001) were higher in the AF than SR. There was a significant correlation between Cn difference and transmitral gradient difference (mean and maximal) (Cn difference-mean gradient difference; r=0.46; p=0.05; Cn difference-maximal gradient difference; r=0.72; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac rhythm has a significant impact on echocardiographic evaluation of MVA, transmitral gradient, and Cn in patients with MS.

A Novel Index Combining Diastolic and Systolic Tissue Doppler Parameters for Prediction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of patients at risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence with using simple and objective parameters may be helpful in tailoring the treatment. In this study, we investigated whether E/(Ea×Sa) and Ea/(Aa×Sa) could be a predictor of AF recurrence after cardioversion. (E = early diastolic transmitral velocity, Ea = early diastolic mitral annular velocity, Aa = late diastolic mitral annular velocity, Sa = systolic mitral annular velocity). METHODS: In total, 127 patients with persistent AF were evaluated for this study and 73 patients were included according to the study criteria. Sinus rhythm (SR) was achieved for 70 patients after electrical direct-current cardioversion. E, Sa, Ea, and Aa were determined at mitral medial and lateral site and average values obtained. E/(Ea×Sa) and Ea/(Aa×Sa) were calculated (medial, lateral, average). Heart rate and rhythm were followed with an electrocardiography (ECG) monitor and 12-lead ECG at first week and first month. RESULTS: At one month, 53 patients (75.7%) were in SR, whereas 17 patients (24.3%) reverted to AF. According to precardioversion E/(Ea×Sa) lateral, E/(Ea×Sa) medial, E/(Ea×Sa) average (P ≤ 0.01 for all the indices), 24-hour echocardiographic evaluation E/(Ea×Sa) lateral, E/(Ea×Sa) medial, E/(Ea×Sa) average, Ea/(Aa×Sa) lateral, Ea/(Aa×Sa) medial, and Ea/(Aa×Sa) average (P ≤ 0.01 for all the indices), indices were significantly higher in the AF recurrence group than in the SR group. Furthermore, the ROC analysis showed that all the E/(Ea×Sa) and Ea/(Aa×Sa) parameters predict the AF recurrence. The AUC values range from 70% to 81% (P ≤ 0.01 for all the parameters). In subgroup analysis of the patients, precardioversion mitral medial E/Ea ratio was between 8 and 15, and the ROC analysis showed that the novel indices predict the AF recurrence. The AUC values range from 72% to 86% (P ≤ 0.02 for all the parameters). CONCLUSIONS: We found that E/(Ea×Sa) and Ea/(Aa×Sa) indices are novel predictors of AF recurrence.

The effect of varenicline on Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio in healthy smokers and nonsmokers.

BACKGROUND: Varenicline could affect the T wave and QT interval. The interval from the peak to the end of the electrocardiographic (ECG) T wave (Tp-e) may correspond to the transmural dispersion of repolarization, and increased Tp-e interval and Tp-e/QT ratio are associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In this study, we assessed the effects of varenicline on Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers (15 healthy non-smokers [NS] and 15 healthy smokers [S]) were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Varenicline (2 mg single dose) or placebo was administered in two different testing sessions (5 days after the first period, performed the second period). Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio were assessed in the supine position and during handgrip exercise before and after the participants were given placebo or varenicline. Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio were calculated from continuous ECG recordings and averages were used in the final analysis. RESULT: There were no statistically significant differences among any of the Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio before and after placebo administration in both groups (S and NS). In the S group, Tp-e and QTc interval, and Tp-e/QT and Tp-e/QTc ratio were significantly increased after varenicline administration (Tp-e: 64.28 ± 8.78 vs. 70.42 ± ± 13.12; p = 0.02, QTc: 409.57 ± 28.17 vs. 425.28 ± 32.79; p = 0.02, Tp-e/QT: 0.18 ± 0.02 vs. 0.19 ± 0.03; p = 0.04, Tp-e/QTc: 0.17 ± 0.02 vs. 0.19 ± 0.02; p = 001) but these parameters were not changed in the NS group. CONCLUSIONS: Tp-e and QTc interval, and Tpe/QT and Tpe/QTc ratio were increased after varenicline administration in smokers.

The effect of varenicline on heart rate variability in healthy smokers and nonsmokers.

Varenicline is an α4ß2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist. In this study, we assessed the effects of varenicline on heart rate variability (HRV). Thirty subjects were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Varenicline or placebo was administered in two different testing sessions. Time domain parameters and power spectral analysis of HRV were assessed in the supine position and during handgrip exercise before and after the participants were given placebo or varenicline. Fifteen healthy non-smokers (NS) and fifteen healthy smokers (S) were included in the study. There were no statistically significant differences among any of the time domain parameters obtained before and after placebo administration or between the S and NS groups with respect to varenicline administration. In frequency domain analyses, normalized HF (high-frequency) powers were significantly higher in the S group than in the NS group (before placebo, NS:6.57±3.58 vs. S:13.85±7.50, p=0.002, after placebo, NS:6.33±3.89 vs. S:10.82±4.88, p=0.007). After varenicline administration, the normalized HF power was significantly higher (NS:6.65±4.34 vs. S:11.06±4.52, p=0.01), and the ratio of LF (low-frequency) to HF was significantly lower (NS:8.44±5.89 vs. S:4.97±4.60, p=0.02) in the S group than in the NS group. Administration of a single dose of varenicline significantly increased the LF/HF ratio (5.83±2.69 vs. 8.44±5.89) in the NS group, but in the S group, there were no significant differences related to any of the time or frequency domain parameters. We concluded that a single dose of varenicline does not affect HRV in healthy smokers but that it may alter HRV when administered at a therapeutic dose to healthy non-smokers during mild sympathetic stimulation.