Ultra-High-Resolution Coronary CT Angiography for Assessment of Patients with Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: Initial Experience.

PURPOSE: Conventional CT technology yields only modest accuracy of coronary artery stenosis assessment in severely calcified lesions. Reported herein are this study's initial observations on the potential of ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT) for evaluating severely calcified coronary arterial lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients 45 years of age or older, with history of coronary artery disease, referred for invasive coronary angiography, were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent UHR-CT within 30 days prior to cardiac catheterization. Image noise levels and diagnostic confidence (level 1-5) using UHR-CT were compared with reconstructed images simulating conventional CT technology. Stenosis assessment for the major coronary arteries and the left main coronary artery with UHR-CT and invasive angiography were compared. Results from clinically driven coronary CT using conventional technology were considered for comparison when available. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 67 years (range, 53-79 years). Thirteen patients were men, nine had obesity. Radiation dose was 9.3 mSv owing to expanded x-ray exposure to accommodate research software application (70%-99% of R-R cycle). Overall image noise was considerably greater for UHR-CT (50.9 ± 7.8 [standard deviation]) versus conventional CT image reconstruction (19.5 ± 8.3, P < .01), yet diagnostic confidence scores for UHR-CT were high (4.3 ± 0.9). Average calcium score in patients without stents (n = 6) was 1205, and of 86 vessels evaluated, 22 had 70% or greater stenosis depicted with invasive angiography (26%). Stenosis comparison with invasive angiography yielded 86% (19 of 22) sensitivity and 88% (56 of 64) specificity (95% CI: 65%, 97%; and 77%, 95%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Initial observations suggest UHR-CT may be effective in overcoming the limitation of conventional CT for accurately evaluating coronary artery stenoses in severely calcified vessels.Keywords: CT-Angiography, Coronary Arteries, ArteriosclerosisClinical trial registration no. NCT04272060See also commentary by Shanbhag and Chen in this issue.© RSNA, 2021.

Financial impact of an analgosedation protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in a cardiovascular intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of an analgosedation protocol in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) on daily doses and costs of analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic medications. METHODS: We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study in 363 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to our CICU from March 1, 2011, to April 13, 2013. On March 1, 2012, an analgosedation protocol was implemented. Patients in the pre-implementation group were managed at the cardiologist's discretion, which consisted of a continuous sedative-hypnotic approach and opioids as needed. Patients in the implementation group were managed using this protocol. RESULTS: The mean ± S.D. per-patient doses (mg/day) of propofol, lorazepam, and clonazepam decreased with the use of an analgosedation protocol (propofol 132,265.7 ± 12,951 versus 87,980.5 ± 10,564 [p = 0.03]; lorazepam 10.5 ± 7.3 versus 3.3 ± 4.0 [p < 0.001]; clonazepam 9.9 ± 8.3 versus 1.1 ± 0.5 [p = 0.03]). The mean daily cost of propofol and lorazepam also significantly decreased (33.5% reduction in propofol cost [p = 0.03]; 69.0% reduction in lorazepam cost [p < 0.001]). The per-patient dose and cost of fentanyl (mcg/day) declined with analgosedation protocol use (fentanyl 2,274.2 ± 2317.4 versus 1,026.7 ± 981.4 [p < 0.001]; 54.8% decrease in fentanyl cost [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSION: The implementation of an analgosedation protocol significantly decreased both the use and cost of propofol, lorazepam, and fentanyl. Further investigation of the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a critical care consultation service with implementation of an analgosedation protocol is warranted in the CICU.

Anticoagulation risk assessment for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A clinical review.

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism anticoagulation risk assessment tools have been increasingly utilized to guide implementation and duration of anticoagulant therapy. Anticoagulation significantly reduces stroke and recurrent venous thromboembolism risk, but comes at the cost of increased risk of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The decision for anticoagulation in high-risk patients is complicated by the fact that many risk factors associated with increased thromboembolic risk are simultaneously associated with increased bleeding risk. Traditional risk assessment tools rely heavily on age, sex, and presence of cardiovascular comorbidities, with newer tools additionally taking into account changes in risk factors over time and novel biomarkers to facilitate more personalized risk assessment. These tools may help counsel and inform patients about the risks and benefits of starting or continuing anticoagulant therapy and can identify patients who may benefit from more careful management. Although the ability to predict anticoagulant-associated hemorrhagic risk is modest, ischemic and bleeding risk scores have been shown to add significant value to therapeutic management decisions. Ultimately, further work is needed to optimally implement accurate and actionable risk stratification into clinical practice.