scholarly journals Myocardial Bridging, the Hidden Risk Factor for Ischemia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo C Happach ◽  
Gerald T Delk ◽  
Latha Ganti

ABSTRACT Myocardial bridging is an uncommon cause of a quite common emergency department complaint for chest pain and is often associated with left ventricular hypertrophy. We present a case of an otherwise healthy middle-aged U.S. military service member who presented with acute coronary syndrome which was ultimately determined to be the result of myocardial bridging.

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Bergstrom ◽  
J Askling ◽  
A Discacciati ◽  
M Frick ◽  
T Jernberg ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Quoc Bao Tran ◽  
Anh Khoa Phan ◽  
Anh Binh Ho

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a syndrome due to decreased blood flow in the coronary arteries such that part of the heart muscle is unable to function properly or dies. Even though the detection of a rise and/or fall of cTn values with at least one value above the 99th percentile URL is the key in diagnose of ACS, the role of electrocardiogram (ECG) still plays an important role in ACS simply because of its sensitivity and specificity. In clinical practice, ST-Elevation Myocardial infarction (STEMI) is easy for physicians and cardiologists to identify. STEMI is defined by new ST-elevation at the J-point in the absence of left ventricular hypertrophy and bundle branch block with two contiguous leads with cut-point: ≥ 1mm in all leads other than V2-V3 where the following cut-point apply: ≥ 2mm in men ≥ 40 years; ≥2.5mm in men < 40 years, or ≥ 1.5mm in women regardless of age. 


Author(s):  
M. Bergström ◽  
J. Askling ◽  
A. Discacciati ◽  
M. Frick ◽  
T. Jernberg ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 546-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayman El-Menyar ◽  
Khalid F Al Habib ◽  
Mohammad Zubaid ◽  
Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali ◽  
Kadhim Sulaiman ◽  
...  

Background: Shock index is a bedside reflection of integrated response of the cardiovascular and nervous systems. We aimed to evaluate the utility of shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: We analyzed pooled data from seven Arabian Gulf registries; these ACS registries were carried out in seven countries (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen) between 2005 and 2017. A standard uniform coding strategy was used to recode each database using each registry protocol and clinical research form. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their initial shock index (low vs. high shock index). Optimal shock index cutoff was determined according to the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Results: A total of 24,636 ACS patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean age 57±13 years. Based on ROC analysis, the optimal shock index was 0.80 (83.5% had shock index <0.80 and 16.5% had shock index ≥0.80). In patients with high shock index, 55% had ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 45% had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients with high shock index were more likely to have diabetes mellitus, late presentation, door to electrocardiogram >10 min, symptom to Emergency Department > 3 h, anterior myocardial infarction, impaired left ventricular function, no reperfusion post-therapy, recurrent ischemia/myocardial infarction, tachyarrhythmia and stroke. However, high shock index was associated significantly with less chest pain, less thrombolytic therapy and less primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Shock index correlated significantly with pulse pressure ( r= −0.52), mean arterial pressure ( r= −0.48), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score ( r =0.41) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction simple risk index ( r= −0.59). Shock index ≥0.80 predicted mortality in ACS with 49% sensitivity, 85% specificity, 97.6% negative predictive value and 0.6 negative likelihood ratio. Multivariate regression analysis showed that shock index was an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.40, p<0.001), heart failure (aOR 1.67, p<0.001) and cardiogenic shock (aOR 3.70, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although shock index is the least accurate of the ones tested, its simplicity may argue in favor of its use for early risk stratification in patients with ACS. The utility of shock index is equally good for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. High shock index identifies patients at increased risk of in-hospital mortality and urges physicians in the Emergency Department to use aggressive management.


2017 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Elnitsky ◽  
Cara L. Blevins ◽  
Michael P. Fisher ◽  
Kathryn Magruder

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Syed Khurram Mushtaq Gardezi ◽  

A 61-year-old man was admitted to hospital with severe occipital headache and weakness and numbness of the left arm. His electrocardiograms showed changes hinting at acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, in view of his clinical presentation, he underwent tests for likely subarachnoid haemorrhage, but this was ruled out. The next day, he was referred to cardiology. A transthoracic echocardiogram showed reduced left ventricular systolic function along with regional wall motion abnormalities involving inferoposterior walls. The patient was treated as per the protocol for ACS. A dobutamine stress echocardiogram confirmed inferior myocardial infarction with evidence of myocardial viability in the affected left ventricular segments. Subsequent investigations confirmed three-vessel coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular systolic function. The patient underwent successful coronary artery bypass grafting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document