RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Angiographic assessment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis severity can be unreliable. In cases of ambiguity, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can be utilised with a minimal lumen area (MLA) of ≥6 âmm2 an accepted threshold for safe deferral of revascularization. We sought to assess whether quantitative computer tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) measures could assist clinicians making LMCA revascularization decisions when compared with IVUS as gold standard. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing IVUS assessment of angiographically intermediate LMCA stenosis were included. All patients had undergone 320-slice CTCA <90 days prior to IVUS imaging. Offline quantitative assessment of IVUS- and CT-derived measures were undertaken with the cohort divided into those with significant (s-LMCA) versus non-significant (ns-LMCA) disease using the accepted IVUS threshold. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included, with no difference in mean age (61.5 â± â12.2 vs. 59.7 â± â11.9 years, p â= â0.57), diabetic status (24.2% vs 16.0%, p â= â0.44) or other baseline demographics between groups. Patients with ns-LMCA had larger CT luminal area (8.64 â± â3.91 vs. 5.41 â± â1.54 âmm2, p â< â0.001), larger minimal lumen diameter (MLD) (3.25 â± â0.74 vs. 2.56 â± â0.38 âmm, p â< â0.001) and lower area stenosis (45.74 â± â18.10 vs. 60.93 â± â14.68%, p â= â0.001). There was a significant positive correlation between CTCA and IVUS MLA (r â= â0.68, p â< â0.001) and MLD (r â= â0.67, p â< â0.001). ROC analysis demonstrated CTCA MLA cut-off <8.29 âmm2 provides the greatest negative predictive value and sensitivity in predicting the presence of significant LMCA disease. CONCLUSION: CTCA derived MLA and MLD have a strong correlation with IVUS. A CTCA derived MLA cut-off <8.29 âmm2 showed greatest clinical utility for predicting the need for further assessment, based on IVUS gold standard.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza immunisation reduces cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, but 50% do not receive routine immunisation. The perceptions and current role of cardiologists in recommending and prescribing influenza immunisation has not been well described. METHODS: We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews of 10 cardiologists were performed to identify themes for quantitative evaluation. 63 cardiologists undertook quantitative evaluation in an online survey. The interviews and surveys addressed (a) attitudes and behaviours regarding influenza immunisation and (b) preventative care in cardiology. RESULTS: One quarter (25.4%, n = 16) of cardiologists recommended influenza immunisation to all patients. Less than half (49.2%, n = 31) recommended influenza immunisation to secondary prevention patients. Almost 1/3 of respondents (31.7%, n = 20) were uncertain or unaware of the guidelines regarding influenza immunisation and patients with cardiac disease. Most cardiologists believed that general practitioners were responsible for ensuring patients received influenza immunisation (76.2%, n = 48). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, influenza immunisation is not widely recommended by cardiologists. Further clinician education is needed to address the knowledge gaps which prevent recommendation and uptake of this guideline directed treatment.