Cardiac shock wave therapy improves myocardial perfusion and preserves left ventricular mechanics in patients with refractory angina: A study with speckle tracking echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac shockwave therapy (CSWT) is a new potential option for the treatment of patients with chronic coronary disease and refractory angina (RA). We aimed to study the effects of CSWT on left ventricular myocardial perfusion and mechanics in patients with RA. METHOD: We prospectively studied 19 patients who underwent CSWT. Left ventricular mechanics were evaluated by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE), and myocardial perfusion by single-photon emission computed tomography, using stress/rest-Technetium-99 m Sestamibi, for determination of summed stress score (SSS). Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS), New York Heart Association (NYHA), and quality of life by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after therapy. RESULTS: CSWT therapy was applied without major side effects. At baseline, 18 patients (94.7%) had CCS class III or IV, and after CSWT there was reduction to 3 (15.8%), P = .0001, associated with improvement in SAQ (38.5%; P < .001). Thirteen (68.4%) had class NYHA III or IV before treatment, with significant reduction to 7 (36.8%); P = .014. No change was observed in the global SSS from baseline to 6-month follow-up (15.33 ± 8.60 vs 16.60 ± 8.06; P = .157). However, there was a significant reduction in the average SSS of the treated ischemic segments (2.1 ± 0.87 pre vs 1.6 ± 1.19 post CSWT; P = .024). Global longitudinal strain by STE remained unaltered (-13.03 ± 8.96 pre vs -15.88 ± 3.43 6-month post CSWT; P = .256). CONCLUSION: CSWT is a safe procedure for the treatment of patients with RA that results in better quality of life, improvement in myocardial perfusion of the treated segments with preservation of left ventricular mechanics.

Obstructive sleep apnea is common among patients referred for coronary artery bypass grafting and can be diagnosed by portable monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common among patients with coronary artery disease. However, OSA remains largely under recognized. The lack of clinical suspicion and difficulties to access full polysomnography (PSG) are limiting factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate, among patients referred to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): (i) the prevalence of OSA, (ii) the association of OSA with clinical symptoms, (iii) the performance of overnight unattended portable monitoring (PM) as an alternative method for the diagnosis of OSA. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for CABG were evaluated by standard physical evaluation and validated questionnaires (Berlin questionnaire and Epworth Sleepiness Scale) and underwent full PSG and PM (Stardust II). RESULTS: We studied 70 consecutive patients (76% men), age 58±7 years (mean±SD), BMI [median (interquartile range)] 27.6 kg/m (25.8-31.1). The prevalence of OSA (full PSG) using an apnea-hypopnea index of at least 5 events/h was 87%. Commonly used clinical traits for the screening of OSA such as the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and neck circumference had low sensitivities to detect OSA. In contrast, the Berlin questionnaire showed a good sensitivity (72%) to detect OSA. PM showed good sensitivity (92%) and specificity (67%) for the diagnosis of OSA. CONCLUSION: OSA is strikingly common among patients referred for CABG. The Berlin questionnaire, but not symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness is a useful tool to screen OSA. PM is useful for the diagnosis of OSA and therefore is an attractive tool for widespread use among patients with coronary artery disease.

Effects of epinephrine in local dental anesthesia in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The use of vasoconstrictors for local anesthesia in patients with coronary heart disease is controversial in the literature, and there is concern regarding risk of cardiac decompensation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate electrocardiographic and blood pressure parameters during restorative dental procedure under local anesthesia with and without a vasoconstrictor in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were included in the study, ages ranging from 39 to 80 (mean 58.7 +/- 8.8), 51 (83.2%) of whom were male. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to receive 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (epinephrine group), and the remaining patients, 2% lidocaine without epinephrine (non-epinephrine group) for local anesthesia. All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and dynamic electrocardiography. Three periods were considered in the study: 1) baseline--recordings obtained during the 60 minutes prior to the procedure; 2) procedure--recordings obtained from the beginning of anesthesia to the end of the procedure and 3) 24 hours. RESULTS: There was an increase in blood pressure in both groups during the procedure, compared with baseline values; but when the two groups were compared no significant difference was detected between them. Heart rate remained unchanged in both groups. No ST-segment depression > 1 mm occurred either at baseline or during the procedure. Seven patients (12.5%) experienced more than ten arrhythmia episodes per hour during the procedure, four (13.8%) in the non-epinephrine group and three (11.1%) in the epinephrine group. CONCLUSION: No difference was observed in blood pressure, heart rate, or evidence of ischemia and arrhythmias in either group. The use of vasoconstrictor has proved to be safe within the range of the present study.

Efeitos do uso da adrenalina na anestesia local odontológica em portador de coronariopatia / Effects of epinephrine in local dental anesthesia in patients with coronary artery disease

FUNDAMENTO: A literatura é controversa no que se refere ao uso de vasoconstritores para anestesia local em cardiopatas, havendo preocupação com a indução de descompensação cardíaca. OBJETIVO: Avaliar parâmetros eletrocardiográficos e de pressão arterial durante procedimento odontológico restaurador sob anestesia local com e sem vasoconstritor em portadores de doença arterial coronária. MÉTODOS: Neste estudo foram avaliados 62 pacientes. As idades variaram de 39 a 80 anos (média de 58,7 + 8,8) anos, sendo 51 pacientes (82,3 por cento) do sexo masculino. Do total de pacientes, 30 foram randomizados para receber anestesia com lidocaína 2 por cento com adrenalina (grupo LCA) e os demais para lidocaína 2 por cento sem vasoconstritor (grupo LSA). Todos foram submetidos a monitorização ambulatorial da pressão arterial e eletrocardiografia dinâmica por 24 horas. Foram considerados três períodos: 1) basal (registros obtidos durante os 60 minutos que antecederam o procedimento); 2) procedimento (registros obtidos desde o início da anestesia até o final do procedimento) e 3) das 24 horas. RESULTADOS: Houve elevação da pressão arterial do período basal para o procedimento nos dois grupos quando analisados separadamente; quando confrontados, não apresentaram diferença entre si. A freqüência cardíaca não se alterou nos dois grupos. Depressão do segmento ST > 1 mm não ocorreu durante os períodos basal e procedimento. Arritmias em número superior a 10 por hora estiveram presentes durante o procedimento em sete pacientes (12,5 por cento), sendo quatro (13,8 por cento) do grupo que recebeu anestesia sem adrenalina e três (11,1 por cento) do grupo com adrenalina. CONCLUSÃO: Não houve diferença em relação a comportamento da pressão arterial, freqüência cardíaca, evidência de isquemia e arritmias entre os grupos. O uso de vasoconstritor mostrou-se seguro dentro dos limites do estudo.

BACKGROUND: The use of vasoconstrictors for local anesthesia in patients with coronary heart disease is controversial in the literature, and there is concern regarding risk of cardiac decompensation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate electrocardiographic and blood pressure parameters during restorative dental procedure under local anesthesia with and without a vasoconstrictor in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were included in the study, ages ranging from 39 to 80 (mean 58.7 ± 8.8), 51 (83.2 percent) of whom were male. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 percent lidocaine with epinephrine (epinephrine group), and the remaining patients, 2 percent lidocaine without epinephrine (non-epinephrine group) for local anesthesia. All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and dynamic electrocardiography. Three periods were considered in the study: 1) baseline - recordings obtained during the 60 minutes prior to the procedure; 2) procedure - recordings obtained from the beginning of anesthesia to the end of the procedure and 3) 24 hours. RESULTS: There was an increase in blood pressure in both groups during the procedure, compared with baseline values; but when the two groups were compared no significant difference was detected between them. Heart rate remained unchanged in both groups. No ST-segment depression > 1 mm occurred either at baseline or during the procedure. Seven patients (12.5 percent) experienced more than ten arrhythmia episodes per hour during the procedure, four (13.8 percent) in the non-epinephrine group and three (11.1 percent) in the epinephrine group. CONCLUSION: No difference was observed in blood pressure, heart rate, or evidence of ischemia and arrhythmias in either group. The use of vasoconstrictor has proved to be safe within the range of the present study.