Care of the patient after valve intervention.

This review aims to outline the current evidence base and guidance for care of patients post-valve intervention. Careful follow-up, optimisation of medical therapy, antithrombotics, reduction of cardiovascular risk factors and patient education can help improve patient outcomes and quality of life. Those with mechanical valves should receive lifelong anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist but in certain circumstances may benefit from additional antiplatelet therapy. Patients with surgical bioprosthetic valves, valve repairs and transcatheter aortic valve implantation also benefit from antithrombotic therapy. Additionally, guideline-directed medical therapy for coexistent heart failure should be optimised. Cardiovascular risk factors such as hyperlipidaemia, hypertension and diabetes should be treated in the same way as those without valve intervention. Patients should also be encouraged to exercise regularly, eat healthily and maintain a healthy weight. Currently, there is not enough evidence to support routine cardiac rehabilitation in individuals post-valve surgery or intervention but this may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Women of childbearing age should be counselled regarding future pregnancy and the optimal management of their valve disease in this context. Patients should be educated regarding meticulous oral health, be encouraged to see their dentist regularly and antibiotics should be considered for high-risk dental procedures. Evidence shows that patients post-valve intervention or surgery are best treated in a dedicated valve clinic where they can undergo clinical review and surveillance echocardiography, be provided with heart valve education and have access to the multidisciplinary valve team if needed.

Differentiation between athlete's heart and dilated cardiomyopathy in athletic individuals.

OBJECTIVE: Distinguishing early dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) from physiological left ventricular (LV) dilatation with LV ejection fraction <55% in athletes (grey zone) is challenging. We evaluated the role of a cascade of investigations to differentiate these two entities. METHODS: Thirty-five asymptomatic active males with DCM, 25 male athletes in the 'grey zone' and 24 male athletes with normal LV ejection fraction underwent N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement, ECG and exercise echocardiography. Grey-zone athletes and patients with DCM underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and Holter monitoring. RESULTS: Larger LV cavity dimensions and lower LV ejection fraction were the only differences between grey-zone and control athletes. None of the grey-zone athletes had abnormal NT-proBNP, increased ectopic burden/complex arrhythmias or pathological late gadolinium enhancement on CMR. These features were also absent in 71%, 71% and 50% of patients with DCM, respectively. 95% of grey-zone athletes and 60% of patients with DCM had normal ECG. During exercise echocardiography, 96% grey-zone athletes increased LV ejection fraction by >11% from baseline to peak exercise compared with 23% of patients with DCM (p<0.0001). Peak LV ejection fraction was >63% in 92% grey-zone athletes compared with 17% patients with DCM (p<0.0001). Failure to increase LV ejection fraction >11% from baseline to peak exercise or achieve a peak LV ejection fraction >63% had sensitivity of 77% and 83%, respectively, and specificity of 96% and 92%, respectively, for predicting DCM. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive assessment using a cascade of routine investigations revealed that exercise stress echocardiography has the greatest discriminatory value in differentiating between grey-zone athletes and asymptomatic patients with DCM. Our findings require validation in larger studies.

Magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a dual chamber pacemaker.

Having a pacemaker has been seen an absolute contraindication to having an MRI scan. This has become increasingly difficult in clinical practice as insertion of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators is at an all time high. Here we outline a case where a 71-year-old male patient with a permanent pacemaker needed to have an MRI scan to ascertain the aetiology of his condition and help guide further management. Given this clinical dilemma, an emergency clinical ethics consultation was arranged. As a result the patient underwent an MRI scan safely under controlled conditions with a consultant cardiologist and radiologist present. The results of the MRI scan were then able to tailor further treatment. This case highlights that in certain conditions an MRI can be performed in patients with permanent pacemakers and outlines the role of clinical ethics committees in complex medical decision making.