Left ventricular hypertrophy: hypertensive or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? What a dilemma! A case report.

In the presence of the left ventricle hypertrophy (LVH), the differential diagnosis with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or some phenocopy must be always considered, which can be easily suspected when the hypertrophy is markedly asymmetric. However, when the hypertrophy is homogeneous, especially if the patient has concomitant hypertension, it may be a challenge to distinguish between hypertensive and HCM, although some clinical features may help us to suspect it. In addition, patients with HCM may present with exertional angina due to microcirculation involvement in the setting of the hypertrophy itself or dynamic obstruction in the left ventricular outflow tract, but in some cases, the presence of concomitant coronary artery disease must be suspected as the cause of angina, especially if the patient has an intermediate or high-risk probability of having ischemic heart disease. We present the case of a 46-year-old Afro-American man with poorly controlled hypertension who was found to have severe LVH, and who presented with symptoms of exertional angina during follow-up. We will review the clinical features that can help us in the differential diagnosis in this context.

Ante la presencia de hipertrofia del ventrículo izquierdo (HVI), siempre se debe considerar el diagnóstico diferencial con la miocardiopatía hipertrófica (MCH) o alguna fenocopia, que puede sospecharse fácilmente cuando la hipertrofia es marcadamente asimétrica. Además, los pacientes con MCH pueden presentar angina de esfuerzo debido a la afectación de la microcirculación en el contexto de la propia hipertrofia o si ésta condiciona obstrucción dinámica al tracto de salida del ventrículo izquierdo, pero en algunos casos debe sospecharse la presencia de enfermedad coronaria concomitante como causa de la angina, especialmente si el paciente tiene una probabilidad de riesgo intermedio o alto de padecer cardiopatía isquémica. Presentamos el caso de un varón de 46 años de afroamericana con hipertensión arterial mal controlada a quien se le detectó una HVI severa, y que durante el seguimiento presentó síntomas de angina de esfuerzo. Revisaremos las características clínicas que nos pueden ayudar en el diagnóstico diferencial en este contexto.

Impact of severe aortic stenosis on quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Among individuals ≥ 65 years old, aortic stenosis is highly prevalent and the number of cases is expected to increase in the coming decades, due to the increased life expectancy. Nevertheless, the actual aortic stenosis burden is not well known in population settings and the impact of aortic stenosis on quality of life has not been studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate aortic stenosis impact on health-related quality of life in patients > 65 years old. METHODS: An epidemiological case-control study was carried out to compare quality of life in patients ≥65 years old with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Demographical and clinical information was prospectively obtained and quality of life information was collected with the Short Form Health Survey_v2 (SF-12) questionnaire. The association between quality of life and aortic stenosis was determined using multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis self-perceived worse quality of life on all dimensions and summary components of the SF-12 questionnaire. In the final multiple logistic regression model a significant inverse association was observed between the dimensions 'physical role' and 'social role' (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005) and an association close to significance with 'physical role' (p = 0.052) of the SF-12 questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The use of quality of life scales allows the assessment of the impact of aortic stenosis on quality of life and may improve the therapeutic approach to severe aortic stenosis, providing evidence for patient-centered care.

Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Introduction: Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. Methods: From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. Results: From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0), less access time (39 (25-60) sec vs. 50 (29-90) sec, p=0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p=1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20-56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4-46.3) Gy.m2; p=0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5-9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4-7.5) min, p=0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group. Conclusions: The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.

An Uncommon Cause of Dyspnea: Usefulness of Multimodality Cardiac Imaging.

Pericardial lipomas are very uncommon benign primary cardiac tumors. We describe the case of a patient with symptomatic large pericardial mass who presented with heart failure. Multimodality cardiac imaging helped us in the diagnosis of this unusual entity. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; -3.831 mL [-6.165 mL to -1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], -72.471 s [-99.694 s to -45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials / Comparación de la estrategia de catéter único versus la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres sobre el volumen de contraste radiológico y el rendimiento del cateterismo coronario diagnóstico por acceso transradial: una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados

Abstract Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL to −1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], −72.471 s [−99.694 s to −45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Resumen Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI according to day-time of medical attention and its relationship with circadian pattern.

OBJECTIVE: Relationship between STEMI time of presentation, its circadian pattern and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. Our objective is to analyze clinical outcomes of STEMI according to time of presentation and circadian pattern. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients treated within the regional STEMI Network from January 2010 to December 2015. On-hour group included patients treated between 8:00 h and 19:59 h on weekdays, the rest were catalogued as off-hour group. The primary endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital complications. RESULTS: A total of 8608 patients were included, 44.1% in the on-hour group and 55.9% in the off-hour group. We observed a shorter patient delay and longer system delay in the off-hour group compared to on-hour group with no difference in total ischemic time. At 30-day and 1-year follow-up there were no differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between groups [OR 0.91 (CI95%: 0.73-1.12; p = 0.35) and OR 0.99 (CI95%: 0.83-1.17; p = 0.87), respectively]. A circadian pattern was observed between 9:00 am and 12:30 pm, with no differences in 30-day and 1-year mortality between patients included in this time interval [OR 1.02 (IC95%: 0.81-1.30; p = 0.85) and OR 1.12 (IC95%: 0.92-1.36; p = 0.25) respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Off-hour STEMI presentation was associated with a shorter patient delay and longer system delay without an increase in total ischemic time. The off-hour presentation was not related to an increase in 1-year all-cause mortality when compared to on-hour. A circadian pattern was found, without differences in 30-day and 1-year mortality.

Impact of One-Catheter Strategy with TIG I Catheter on Coronary Catheterization Performance and Economic Costs.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. METHODS: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.

Impact of One-Catheter Strategy with TIG I Catheter on Coronary Catheterization Performance and Economic Costs / Impacto da Estratégia de um Cateter com Cateter TIG I no Desempenho da Coronariografia por Cateterismo e Custos Econômicos

Abstract Background: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. Methods: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.

Resumo Fundamento: A cineangiocoronariografia com dois cateteres é a estratégia tradicional para procedimentos coronarianos de diagnóstico. O cateter TIG I permite canular ambas as artérias coronárias, evitando a troca de cateteres durante a cineangiocoronariografia por acesso transradial. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar o impacto da estratégia de um cateter, evitando a troca de cateter, no desempenho da coronariografia por cateterismo e nos seus custos econômicos. Métodos: Foram coletados os procedimentos diagnósticos coronarianos transradiais realizados entre janeiro de 2013 e junho de 2017. A estratégia de um cateter (cateter TIG I) e a estratégia de dois cateteres (cateteres coronários direito e esquerdo de Judkins) foram comparadas. O volume de contraste iodado administrado foi o endpoint primário. Os endpoints secundários eram espasmo radial, duração do procedimento (tempo de fluoroscopia) e exposição a radiações ionizantes (produto dose-área e kerma no ar). Os custos econômicos diretos também foram avaliados. Para as análises estatísticas, valores de p < 0,05 bicaudais foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados: De um total de 1.953 procedimentos em 1.829 pacientes, 252 procedimentos foram atribuídos à estratégia de um cateter e 1.701 procedimentos à estratégia de dois cateteres. Não houve diferenças nas características basais entre os grupos. A estratégia de um cateter exigiu menos contraste iodado [endpoint primário; (60-105) -mL vs. 92 (64-120) -mL; p < 0,001] em comparação com a estratégia de dois cateteres. Além disso, o grupo da estratégia de um cateter apresentou menos espasmo radial (5,2% vs. 9,3%, p = 0,022) e menor tempo de fluoroscopia [3,9 (2,2-8,0) -min vs. 4,8 (2,9-8,3) -min, p = 0,001] e economia de custos [149 (140-160)-€/procedimento vs. 171 (160-183) -€/procedimento; p < 0,001]. Não foram detectadas diferenças no produto dose-área e kerma no ar entre os grupos. Conclusões: A estratégia de um cateter, com cateter TIG I, melhora o desempenho da coronariografia por cateterismo e reduz os custos econômicos em comparação com a estratégia tradicional de dois cateteres em pacientes encaminhados para cineangiocoronariografia.