The utility of radiographic assessment of the internal mammary arteries in chest wall irradiated patients.

PURPOSE: The internal mammary arteries (IMA's) are historically recognized to be protected against atherosclerosis. Whether chest wall-irradiation for breast cancer leads to significant IMA damage remains unclear. The utility of computed tomography (CT) and mammography to detect radiation-induced damage to the IMA's and its branches is not known. The objective of this study is to assess the susceptibility of IMA's to radiation-induced atherosclerosis, and the utility of CT scan and mammography in the assessment of IMA and its branches. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of breast cancer patients who received chest wall-radiotherapy was performed. Patients with CT scans and/or mammograms ≥5 years post-radiotherapy were included. Baseline characteristics, coronary artery calcification (CAC), the presence of IMA damage assessed by CT scan, and IMA branch calcifications by mammography were recorded. RESULTS: None of the 66 patients with CT scans post-radiotherapy revealed IMA atherosclerosis. There were 28 (42.4%) patients with CAC, of which four (14.3% of CAC subgroup or 6.1% of the total cohort) had calcifications on either side on mammogram (Chi-square test, p = 0.74). Out of the 222 patients with mammograms, 36 (16.2%) had IMA branch calcifications. Two hundred and ten patients received unilateral radiotherapy, and 27 (12.9%) of these patients had calcifications on the irradiated side, and 26 patients (12.4%) had calcifications on the contralateral side (OR = 1.0). CONCLUSION: IMA's do not exhibit signs of radiation-induced atherosclerosis when evaluated by CT scan. In addition, there is no association between radiotherapy for breast cancer and the presence of IMA branch calcification on mammograms.

Understanding the role of left and right ventricular strain assessment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause cardiac injury resulting in abnormal right or left ventricular function (RV/LV) with worse outcomes. We hypothesized that two-dimensional (2D) speckle-tracking assessment of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and RV free wall strain (FWS) by transthoracic echocardiography can assist as markers for subclinical cardiac injury predicting increased mortality. METHODS: We performed 2D strain analysis via proprietary software in 48 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Clinical information, demographics, comorbidities, and lab values were collected via retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality based on an optimized abnormal LV GLS value via ROC analysis and RV FWS. RESULTS: The optimal LV GLS cutoff to predict death was -13.8%, with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 55-98%) and specificity of 54% (95% CI 36-71%). Abnormal LV GLS >-13.8% was associated with a higher risk of death [unadjusted hazard ratio 5.15 (95% CI 1.13-23.45), p = 0.034], which persisted after adjustment for clinical variables. Among patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%, those with LV GLS > -13.8% had higher mortality compared to those with LV GLS <-13.8% (41% vs. 10%, p = 0.030). RV FWS value was higher in patients with LV GLS >-13.8% (-13.7 ±â€¯5.9 vs. -19.6 ±â€¯6.7, p = 0.003), but not associated with decreased survival. CONCLUSION: Abnormal LV strain with a cutoff of >-13.8% in patients with COVID-19 is associated with significantly higher risk of death. Despite normal LVEF, abnormal LV GLS predicted worse outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. There was no mortality difference based on RV strain.

An assessment of transesophageal echocardiography studies rated as rarely appropriate tests for infective endocarditis at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Endocardial involvement documented by echocardiography is a major criterion of the modified Duke criteria (MDC) for infective endocarditis (IE). Though transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is sensitive in the diagnosis of IE, it can be inappropriately used. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients who underwent TEE due to bacteremia, fever, and/or endocarditis in a single, tertiary academic medical center in 2013. Data collected from electronic medical charts were as follows: demographics, history, physical examination, blood cultures, and transthoracic (TTE) and TEE findings. Cases were categorized based on appropriate use criteria (AUC) and MDC. An infectious disease (ID) specialist reviewed cases with rarely appropriate TEE use. RESULTS: In the 194 patients included, 147 (75.8%) were rated as appropriate, 36 (18.6%) rarely appropriate, and 11 (5.6%) uncertain. Of the 36 with rarely appropriate TEEs, using MDC 31 (86%) were rejected and 5 (14%) were possible for IE. Retrospective chart review by an ID specialist determined that 10 of these patients warranted TEE due to compelling issues, including immunosuppression or complicated infection. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort, almost one fifth of cases were rated as rarely appropriate. However, a review of these cases showed that TEE was often pursued when the clinical situation involved immunosuppression or complex infectious process. There remains room for improvement to our screening process for TEE and a need to implement a nuanced educational plan to better precisely identify appropriate cases for TEE usage.

The feasibility of contrast echocardiography in the assessment of right ventricular size and function.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricle (RV) evaluation requires dedicated imaging to achieve a comprehensive functional and anatomical assessment. Right ventricular imaging could be technically difficult which results in suboptimal visibility and inconsistent assessment between observers. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility and the additive value of contrast enhancement for right ventricular evaluation. METHODS: Eighty patients referred for clinically indicated echocardiography studies were included. Patients with irregular rhythms were excluded. Dedicated RV-focused view was attained; RV dimensions measured, and RV segment visualization and wall motion were assessed with and without contrast enhancement. Paired sample t test was used to compare continuous variables, Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare segments visualization on enhanced versus (vs) nonenhanced images, and Cohen kappa coefficient to assess the agreement of wall motion between two observers. Reproducibility was measured by the absolute mean difference method. RESULTS: A total of 240 total segments of 80 patients were analyzed, and 178 (74%) were visible on unenhanced while 221 (92%) on enhanced images, P < .05. Further, RV measurements on enhanced images were consistently larger on RV focused, SAX, and RVOT. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility showed a higher reproducibility with a lower bias on enhanced images. Absolute agreement on RV segmental wall motion between two independent observers was higher on enhanced images. Percent agreement was 78% on UE vs 89% on CE. CONCLUSION: Contrast RV imaging is feasible and improves RV segment visualization and inter-observer agreement. Compared with unenhanced images, RV measurements on contrast images are larger and more reproducible with lower bias.