Comparison of dual-bolus versus dual-sequence techniques for determining myocardial blood flow and myocardial perfusion reserve by cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion: From the Automated Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion cardiac Magnetic Resonance Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can be performed using the dual-sequence (DS) technique or dual-bolus (DB) method. It is unknown if DS and DB produce similar results for myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The study objective is to investigate if there are any differences between DB- and DS-derived MBF and MPR. METHODS: Retrospective observational study with 168 patients who underwent stress CMR. DB and DS methods were simultaneously performed on each patient on the same day. Global and segmental stress MBF and rest MBF values were collected. RESULTS: Using Bland-Altman analysis, segmental and global stress MBF values were higher in DB than DS (0.22 ± 0.60 mL/g/min, p < 0.001 and 0.20 ± 0.48 mL/g/min, p = 0.005, respectively) with strong correlation (r = 0.81, p < 0.001 for segmental and r = 0.82, p < 0.001 for global). In rest MBF, segmental and global DB values were higher than by DS (0.15 ± 0.51 mL/g/min, p < 0.001 and 0.14 ± 0.36 mL/g/min, p = 0.011, respectively) with strong correlation (r = 0.81, p < 0.001 and r = 0.77, p < 0.001). Mean difference between MPR by DB and DS was -0.02 ± 0.68 mL/g/min (p = 0.758) for segmental values and -0.01 ± 0.49 mL/g/min (p = 0.773) for global values. MPR values correlated strongly as well in both segmental and global, both (r = 0.74, p < 0.001) and (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a very good correlation between DB- and DS-derived MBF and MPR values. However, there are significant differences between DB- and DS-derived global stress and rest MBF. While MPR values did not show statistically significant differences between DB and DS methods.

Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent disease affecting 3.7% of the adult population aged 65 or above. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only definitive therapy available for the treatment of severe AS. Owing to the invasive nature of open-heart surgery, patients with advanced age and frailty could not benefit from SAVR. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the past decade has offered an alternative treatment option for patients with severe AS, particularly those who are deemed to have high surgical risks. Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which increases the risk of peri-procedural vascular complication, and precludes the possibility of transfemoral TAVR owing to inadequate luminal size for delivery system deployment. In this review, the prevalence and outcome of TAVR patients with PAD will be discussed. Furthermore, novel technologies and techniques that enable TAVR to be safely performed using transfemoral or alternative access in patients with severe PAD will be reviewed.

Point-of-care ultrasound augments physical examination learning by undergraduate medical students.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of the provision of handheld point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) devices on physical examination skills of medical students. METHODS: We describe an educational initiative that comprised a POCUS workshop followed by allocation of a POCUS device to medical students for use over the subsequent 8 weeks. They were encouraged to scan patients and correlate their physical examination findings. A mobile instant messaging group discussion platform was set to provide feedback from instructors. Physical examination skills were assessed by means of clinical examination. RESULTS: 210 final-year medical students from the University of Hong Kong participated in the programme. 46.3% completed the end of programme electronic survey: 74.6% enjoyed using the POCUS device, 50.0% found POCUS useful to validate physical examination findings and 47.7% agreed that POCUS increased their confidence with physical examination. 93.9% agreed that the programme should be incorporated into the medical curriculum and 81.9% would prefer keeping the device for longer time from 16 weeks (45.6%) to over 49 weeks (35.3%). Medical students who participated in the POCUS programme had a higher mean score for abdominal examination compared with those from the previous academic year with no POCUS programme (3.65±0.52 vs 3.21±0.80, p=0.014), but there was no statistically significant difference in their mean score for cardiovascular examination (3.62±0.64 vs 3.36±0.93, p=0.203). CONCLUSION: The POCUS programme that included provision of a personal handheld POCUS device improved students' attitude, confidence and ability to perform a physical examination.