Simple echocardiographic scoring in screening aortic stenosis with focused cardiac ultrasonography in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: No established methodology exists for diagnosis of aortic stenosis (AS) using focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of our developed visual AS score for screening AS in an emergency department. METHODS: Seventy-two emergency outpatients with suspected cardiovascular disease were studied. Emergency physicians assessed the visual AS score in addition to conducting the standard FOCUS, and then the aortic valve area index (AVAI) was measured by expert sonographers in the echocardiography laboratory. AVAI values >0.85 cm2/m2, 0.6-0.85 cm2/m2, and <0.6 cm2/m2 were defined as no or mild AS, moderate AS, and severe AS, respectively. RESULTS: Seventeen (24%) patients had moderate or severe AS. Visual AS scores assessed by emergency physicians and by expert sonographers showed excellent agreement (κ = 0.93), and a strong association was noted between the visual AS score assessed by emergency physicians and the AVAI assessed by expert sonographers (R = -0.71, p < 0.0001). A visual AS score ≥3 assessed by emergency physicians had a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosing moderate or severe AS. The prevalence of new-onset AS-related events during hospitalization was higher in patients with visual AS score ≥3 assessed by emergency physicians than in the remaining patients [7 (50%) vs. 2 (3%), p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: The visual AS score is a useful AS screening tool for emergency physicians who are not expert cardiologists.

Questionnaire in patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the medical or mechanical therapy, and the present knowledge of Japanese cardiologists about aborted sudden cardiac death (ASCD) due to coronary spasm. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed regarding the number of cases of ASCD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and medical therapy in ASCD patients due to coronary spasm. The questionnaire was sent to the Japanese general institutions at random in 204 cardiology hospitals. RESULTS: The completed surveys were returned from 34 hospitals, giving a response rate of 16.7%. All SCD during the 5 years was observed in 5726 patients. SCD possibly due to coronary spasm was found in 808 patients (14.0%) and ASCD due to coronary spasm was observed in 169 patients (20.9%). In 169 patients with ASCD due to coronary spasm, one or two coronary vasodilators was administered in two-thirds of patients [113 patients (66.9%)], while more than 3 coronary vasodilators were found in 56 patients (33.1%). ICD was implanted in 117 patients with ASCD due to coronary spasm among these periods including 35 cases with subcutaneous ICD. Majority of cause of ASCD was ventricular fibrillation, whereas pulseless electrical activity was observed in 18 patients and complete atrioventricular block was recognized in 7 patients. Mean coronary vasodilator number in ASCD patients with ICD was significantly lower than that in those without ICD (2.1 ± 0.9 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001). Although 16 institutions thought that the spasm provocation tests under the medications had some clinical usefulness of suppressing the next fatal arrhythmias, spasm provocation tests under the medication were performed in just 4 institutions. CONCLUSIONS: In the real world, there was no fundamental strategy for patients with ASCD due to coronary spasm. Each institution has each strategy for these patients. Cardiologists should have the same strategy and the same knowledge about ASCD patients due to coronary spasm in the future.