An 82-year-old woman with a cardiac mass.

CLINICAL INTRODUCTION: An 82-year-old woman suspected of a cardiac tumour was referred for evaluation. Patient's medical history included atrial fibrillation, implantation of a VVI (ventricular stimulation) pacemaker 3 years earlier due to advanced atrioventicular (AV) block, arterial hypertension and hypothyroidism. Patient was adequately anticoagulated with warfarin (international normalized ratio (INR) 3.0 at admission). She reported occasional palpitations and a 2 kg weight loss in the last 2 years, but denied shortness of breath, chest pain, malaise, fever, chills or cough. Blood samples were taken for tests and cultures. Red blood cells, haemoglobin, white blood cells, platelets, C- reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were within normal ranges. Blood cultures were negative. Echocardiogram (figure 1A) (see online supplementary videos 1 and 2) and cardiac CT were performed (figure 1B). QUESTION: Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?Caseous calcification of the mitral annulusCoconut left atriumMitral valve myxomaPeriannular abscess.

Aortic valve calcification in 499 consecutive patients referred for computed tomography.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) is the most common cause of aortic stenosis. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of aortic valve, coronary artery and aortic calcifications and to evaluate the correlation between calcification of the aortic valve, coronary arteries and aorta. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 499 patients aged 60 years and over who underwent coronary computed tomography because of chest pain. Beside coronary artery calcium score (CAC), we evaluated AVC and ascending aorta calcifications (AAC). RESULTS: Aortic valve calcification was found in 144 subjects (28.9% of the whole study population). Prevalence of CAC and AAC was higher than AVC and amounted to 73.8% and 54.0%. Prevalence of AVC, CAC and AAC was significantly lower in the group of patients ≤ 70 years than in the group of patients > 70 years of age (p = 0.0002, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). Aortic valve calcification was more often observed in men than women (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.02). Degree of aortic valve calcification was also significantly higher among men than women (median score 4 vs. 0, p = 0.01). Similar observations were true for CAC and AAC, where both prevalence and degree of calcification was higher among men than women. In the whole study population no correlation was noted between AVC and CAC or AAC (p = 0.34, p = 0.85). There was a significant correlation between AAC and CAC (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite some similarities in pathological mechanism and risk factors, a degenerative defect of the aortic valve could be independent of atheromatous lesions in the coronary arteries and aorta.

Factors affecting long-term survival after aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) due to significant aortic stenosis (AS) and assess changes in factors affecting survival during a 10-year period in patients referred for surgery from a single centre. METHODS: We evaluated 1143 patients (478 women, 665 men; mean age 61 ± 5 years) treated in the Department of Valvular Heart Disease at the Institute of Cardiology in Warsaw who were referred for AVR due to significant AS in 1998-2008 and survived the surgery and the initial 30-day postoperative period. We assessed long-term survival in relation to preoperative parameters including demographic data (age, gender), clinical variables (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class, presence of a significant coronary artery stenosis, arterial hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]), and operative parameters (prosthetic valve type: biological vs. mechanical, and the type of the surgery: isolated AVR vs. AVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting). RESULTS: Ten-year survival was worse in men compared to women (p = 0.001), with the effect of gender gradually decreasing after 3 years of follow-up. Factors affecting long-term survival included age (p = 0.0001) and NYHA class (p = 0.005) in women, and age (p = 0.0001), NYHA class (p = 0.0001), arterial hypertension (p = 0.01), reduced LVEF (p = 0.03), and the presence of significant coronary artery stenoses (p = 0.0001) in men. Evaluation of factors affecting 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year survival showed their variability mostly in men. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term surgical outcomes in patients with significant AS are very good, with better survival in women compared to men, although these differences attenuated after 3 years. Factors affecting 10-year survival are different in women and men: a significant effect in women was noted only for age and preoperative NYHA class, while in men for age, NYHA class, hypertension, reduced LVEF, and the presence of significant coronary artery stenoses. During 10-year follow-up, longitudinal changes can be noted in factors affecting survival after AVR.

May dual-source computed tomography angiography replace invasive coronary angiography in the evaluation of patients referred for valvular disease surgery?

BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography is currently the only alternative to invasive angiography in the evaluation of coronary anatomy. In patients referred for valvular or thoracic aortic disease surgery, invasive coronary angiography remains the gold standard required by cardiac surgeons during the preoperative evaluation. According to the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines, evaluation of coronary anatomy is recommended in all patients above 40 years of age, with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD), in postmenopausal women, patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with suspected ischaemic aetiology of mitral regurgitation, and in patients with one or more risk factors for CAD. The possibility to perform coronary CT angiography to exclude CAD before planned non-coronary cardiac surgery was first allowed in the 2010 Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus. AIM: To evaluate the usefulness of dual-source CT for the evaluation of coronary anatomy in patients before planned cardiac valvular surgery. METHODS: We studied 98 consecutive patients with a haemodynamically significant valvular heart disease and guideline-based indications for coronary angiography to exclude CAD before planned valvular surgery. Exclusion criteria included cardiac arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, frequent ventricular and supraventricular premature beats), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), allergy to iodine contrast agents, and lack of patient consent. Mean patient age was 58.8 (range 30-78) years. Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) was first determined in all patients. Coronary CT angiography was not performed if CACS was > 1000. In the remaining patients, complete CT evaluation was performed with the administration of a contrast agent. Conventional invasive coronary angiography was subsequently performed in patients with at least one > 50% stenosis, artifacts due to calcifications, or motion artifacts. RESULTS: In 79 (80.6%) patients, CT angiography excluded the presence of a significant coronary artery stenosis without the need for invasive angiography. Conventional coronary angiography was required in 19 (19.4%) patients, including 13 (13.3%) patients with a > 50% stenosis in CT angiography, 2 (2%) patients with calcification artifacts, 1 (1%) patient with motion artifacts, 2 (2%) patients with CACS > 1000 in whom CT angiography was nor performed, and 1 (1%) patient with allergic symptoms during administration of a test dose of the contrast agent. Ultimately, significant CAD was diagnosed in 9 (9.2%) patients in whom coronary artery bypass surgery was also performed. In addition, vascular anomalies were diagnosed with cardiac CT angiography in 5 (5.1%) patients. In 14 patients, CT angiography was also used for previously planned evaluation of a coexisting aortic aneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CT angiography may be useful to exclude significant CAD in patients referred for valvular disease surgery.