CASE PRESENTATION: In a 65-year old male undergoing the bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair and the extensive remodeling of dilated sinus and tubular junction, and preoperative coronary angiography were unsuccessfully completed due to an allergic reaction to the contrast medium. Intraoperative TEE by employing various 3-dimensional volume images of coronary ostia and Doppler tracings of the coronary arterial flows enabled a thorough pre-procedural evaluation of the high take-off coronary arteries and post-procedural evaluation by confirming the absence of any compromise in coronary arterial flow.
CONCLUSION: In the present case, intraoperative application of various TEE imaging modalities enabled comprehensive evaluation of high-taking off coronary artery, as an alternative to preoperative coronary angiography, in a patient undergoing an extensive aortic valve and aortic root repair procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine phantoms were fabricated with different bifurcation angles ranging from 55.3° to 134.5°. General X-ray and CCTA were employed to acquire 2D and 3D images of the bifurcation phantoms, respectively. Multiplanar reformation (MPR) and volume rendering technique (VRT) were used to measure the bifurcation angle between the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex arteries (LCx). The measured angles were compared with the true values to determine the accuracy of each measurement technique. Inter-observer variability was evaluated. The two techniques were further applied on 50 clinical CCTA cases to verify its clinical value.
RESULTS: In the phantom setting, the mean absolute differences calculated between the true and measured angles by MPR and VRT were 2.4°±2.2° and 3.8°±2.9°, respectively. Strong correlation was found between the true and measured bifurcation angles. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the bifurcation angles measured using either technique. In clinical settings, large difference of 12.0°±10.6° was found between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: In the phantom setting, both techniques demonstrated a significant correlation to the true bifurcation angle. Despite the lack of agreement of the two techniques in the clinical context, our findings in phantoms suggest that MPR should be preferred to VRT for the measurement of coronary bifurcation angle by CCTA.
BACKGROUND: No study has directly compared the risk factors associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and CRA.
STUDY: This was a cross-sectional study using multinomial logistic regression analysis of 4859 adults who participated in a health screening examination (2010 to 2011; analysis 2014 to 2015). CAC scores were categorized as 0, 1 to 100, or >100. Colonoscopy results were categorized as absent, low-risk, or high-risk CRA.
RESULTS: The prevalence of CAC>0, CAC 1 to 100 and >100 was 13.0%, 11.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. The prevalence of any CRA, low-risk CRA, and high-risk CRA was 15.1%, 13.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for CAC>0 comparing participants with low-risk and high-risk CRA with those without any CRA were 1.35 (1.06-1.71) and 2.09 (1.29-3.39), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for any CRA comparing participants with CAC 1 to 100 and CAC>100 with those with no CAC were 1.26 (1.00-1.6) and 2.07 (1.31-3.26), respectively. Age, smoking, diabetes, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with both conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a graded association between CAC and CRA in apparently healthy individuals. The coexistence of both conditions further emphasizes the need for more evidence of comprehensive approaches to screening and the need to consider the impact of the high risk of coexisting disease in individuals with CAC or CRA, instead of piecemeal approaches restricted to the detection of each disease independently.