Evaluation of myocardial perfusion and viability in coronary artery disease in view of the new revascularization guidelines

Evaluation of myocardial perfusion and viability in patients withstable coronary artery disease have now become the basicsource of information in qualification for revascularization oroptimal medical therapy. This article describes all the availablemethods of non-invasive imaging of myocardial perfusion andviability

Electrocardiographic diagnosis of the left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with left bundle branch block: Is it necessary to verify old criteria?

Background: The diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in the presence of the left bundle branch block (LBBB) is difficult. In our study we compared commonly used ECG criteria with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) calculated during cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) to verify their clinical value or the need to recalibrate. Methods: CMRI and ECG data of 36 patients were included in this study. Based on the ECG measures we used in our study selected ECG criteria for LVH detection in cases with LBBB: QRS duration, amplitude of S waves in V1, V2, V3; R waves in aVL, V5, V6 and combinations of amplitudes. LVH was defined as LVMI (CMRI) exceeding reference values. Results: LVH was diagnosed in 17 (47%) patients (6 women and 11 men). Following ECG parameters correlated the most prominently with LVMI — RV5: r = 0.5 (p = 0.002), RV6: r = 0.61 (p = 0.0001), SV1+RV5, 6: r = 0.64 (p = 0.001), RaVL+SV3: r = 0.5 (p = 0.002), SV2+RV5, 6: r = 0.71 (p = 0.0001), SV2, 3+RV5, 6: r = 0.75 (p = 0.0001). Based on the results of ROC analysis we proposed new cut points for LVH parameters. The highest diagnostic accuracy achieved S2+SV3 > 6 mV, SV2,V3+RV5,V6 > 4 mV, RaVL+SV3 > 3.5 mV (86–89%). Conclusions: In patients with LBBB the ECG parameters based on the amplitude of S wave in V2 or V3 and R wave in the leads aVL, V5, V6 have the highest clinical value in the prediction of the LVH determined by CMRI. It was necessary to recalibrate these parameters and it is needed to verify them in larger number of LBBB patients

The use of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging for therapeutic decisions in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and significant neurological, neurosurgical and neuro-oncology diagnostic indications

Between September 2009 and May 2014 the classification of 36 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in terms of the feasibility of MRI scanning due to strong clinical indications was carried out. Finally MRI examinations were performed in 20 patients, of whom 27 studies were conducted and a total number of 35 anatomical regions were scanned. Neurological, neurosurgical and neuro-oncology indications for MRI were reported in 19 patients (95%) in whom 26 MRI studies (96.3%) were performed, and 34 anatomical regions (97.1%) were scanned. One patient had indications for MRI in the field of cardiology. Medical information obtained from 27 MRI studies allowed decisions to be made regarding the treatment in all patients. After 8 studies (29.6%), patients were classified into 9 different neurosurgical procedures. In the case of the remaining 19 studies (70.4%), there were no indications for surgical treatment and the decisions to implement conservative treatment were made. There were no complications related to the implanted CIEDs observed: neither immediate nor in the follow-up. Conclusions (1)Magnetic resonance imaging studies in patients with non-MRI-conditional CIEDs in the vast majority are performed because of significant neurological, neurosurgical and neuro-oncology clinical indications.(2)Careful determination of the indications for MRI in each case allows the data necessary to be obtained to make definitive treatment decisions.(3)The adherence to examination protocol and device controlling procedures after MRI allows a very high safety profile of the method to be achieved