Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘lancet’

What do we mean by atypical chest pain ?

Posted in Cardiology - Clinical, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 14, 2008| 4 Comments »

Chest pain is one  of the commonest presenting symptom  in any  hospital both as  an emergency  or non emergency. Reaching an accurate diagnosis is very important. The main  purpose of evaluation of chest pain is to recognise it as cardiac or non cardiac origin . Cardiac chest pain almost always means ischemic chest pain . That is called angina. (Of course there are few important causes for non ischemic cardiac chest pain which Will be discussed later).

Standard features of typical angina.

Chest pain which falls short of typical features are called atypical chest pain . Some recommend at least three typical features to label it as angina.
After the clinical examination patients  should be categorised in one of the following .

  • Typical angina
  • Atypical chest pain
  • Non cardiac chest pain** Non cardiac chest pain is not a diagnosis. Any physician (or a specialist)  should take some effort to localise it. (Muscle, nerve , pleura , anxiety  etc) . But  generally once these patients are ruled out of cardiac pain  they become less special and are simply referred back to their  family physician, only to return back  with  another cardiac  pseudo-emergency  in a different hospital .

    Why we are diagnosing atypical chest pain liberally ?

    Currently   more number of  patients as well as  the physicians  are   aware of the looming epidemic of CAD. The other major reason is the  lack of application of mind during  foirst clinical appraisal  and examination. Many of the patients with non cardiac chest pain  (Muscle, nerve , pleura )  are termed as atypical chest pain. Though some of the popular texts use atypical  chest pain  and non cardiac chest pain interchangeably , it is not  correct to do so. For example don’t ever label a  patient with chest pain with chest wall tenderness as atypical chest pain and order a cardiac work up .It  is a poor model to  emulate , that consumes time and resources!.Instead they should be diagnosed a confident non cardiac chest pain and dealt properly.

Once a patient is diagnosed  atypical chest pain what’s next ?

They should get a  complete physical examination,ECG, and  undergo exercise stress test.   In the  screening of CAD , angina can be termed a hard sign,  atypical chest pain is a soft sign,  resting ECG is surprisingly  a soft sign again (unless you record it during chest pain). Exercise stress testing is  the ideal  investigation in evaluation of  chestpain.( 70-80% accuracy). This can be improved upon by Thallium, SPECT, stress echo etc. As of now coronary angiogram is considered the ultimate gold standard (Not pure gold !) to rule out  CAD.

It is also worthwhile to remember non anginal  chest pain can also be an emergency and life threatening

  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Pneumothorax
  • Thoracic tumors
  • Aortic aneurysm (Dissection and non dissection)  The list is not  exclusive

Final message

What do we really mean by  atypical chest pain ?

In reality we don’t mean any thing !

When a  cardiac  physician is confused or rather , unable to  rule out angina , at the same time he is not confident of calling it as non cardiac chest pain,  he has the luxury of using this terminology . It is obvious  this terminology  should  minimally  be used.  Once diagnosed  these patients  can’t carry on with this tag  for long. They should be reinvestigated , (Right from history  and clinical ex) .They should either enter the cardiac work up  protocol  or  a non cardiac source for pain should be fixed  immediately.

Read Full Post »

Why thrombolysis is contraindicated in unstable angina ?

Posted in Cardiology - Clinical, cardiology- coronary care, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 10, 2008| 9 Comments »

              Intra coronary thrombosis is the sine qua non of acute coronary syndrome ( Both STEMI and NSTEMI.) But thrombolysis is the specific therapy in STEMI and is contraindicated in NSTEMI/UA.

Why is this apparent paradox ? What is basic differnce between UA and AMI ?

In STEMI there is a sudden & total occlusion of a coronary artery usually by a thrombus with or without a plaque .The immediate aim is to open up the blood vessel . Every minute is important as myocardium undergoes  a continuous process ischemic necrosis. So thrombolysis (or more specifically fibrinolysis should be attempted immediately) .The other option is primary angioplasty,  which will not be discussed here.

The thrombus in STEMI  is RBC &  fibrin rich and often called a red clot. Number of fibrinolytic agents like streptokinase, Tissue palsminogen activator,(TPA) Reteplace, Tenekteplace etc have been tested and  form the cornerstone of STEMI management.The untoward effect of stroke  during  thrombolysis  is well recognised , but usully the risk benefit ratio favors thrombolyis in most situations except in very elderly and previous history of stroke or bleeding disorder.

Unstable angina is a  close companion of STEMI . Many times it precedes STEMI often called preinfarction angina. During this phase blood flow in the coronary artery  becomes sluggish gradually,and patients develop  angina at rest .But unlike STEMI there is never a total occlusion and myocardium  is viable but ischemic,  and emergency salvaging of myocardium is not a therapeutic aim but prevention of MI becomes an aim. It is a paradox of sorts ,  even though thrombus is present in  UA ,  It has been learnt by experience thrombolytic agents are not useful in preventing an MI .

 

Why  thrombolysis is not useful in UA ?

1.In unstable angina  mechanical obstruction in the form of plaque fissure/rupture is more common than completely occluding thrombus. So lysis becomes less important.

2. Even if the thrombus is present , it is often intra plaque  or intra lesional and the  luminal  projection of thrombus is reduced  and hence thromolytic agents have limited area to act.

3.Further in UA/NSTEMI since it is a slow and gradual occlusion (Unlike sudden & total occlusion in STEMI) the platelets  get marginalised and trapped within the plaque .Hence in UA  thrombus is predominantly  white  . Often, a central platelet core  is  seen over which fibrin clot may also be  formed.

4.All available  thrombolytic agents act basically as a fibrinolytic agents,  and   so it finds   difficult to lyse the platelet rich clot.There is also a small risk of these agents lysing the fibrin cap and exposing underlying platelet  core and trigger a fresh thrombus.This has been documented in many trials( TIMI 3b to be specific) So if we thrombolyse in UA , there could be a risk of recurrent ACS episodes in the post thrombolytic phase.

5. UA is a semi emergency where  there is no race against time to salvage myocardium .Administering a  stroke prone thrombolytic agent tilts the risk benefit ratio against it.

6. Among UA, there is a significant group of secondary /perioperative UA   due to increased demand situations. Here there is absolutely no role for any thromolytic agents,  the  simple reason is , there is  no thrombus to get lysed. 

7.Many of the UA patient have multivessel CAD and might require surgical revascualarisation directly .

 

So fibrinolytic  agents are contraindicated in UA so what is the next step ?

The emergence of  intensive and aggressive platelet-lytic agents.

A combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin, glycoprotien 2b 3a antagonist formed the major therapeutic protocol in these patients.Even though these are called antiplalet agents some of them  like 2b/3a antagonist eptifibatide, tirofiban, and many times even heparin has a potential to dissolve a thrombus. So technically one can call these agents  as thrombolytic agents.

What are the unresolved issues

                                       Even though clinical trials have convincingly shown thrombolytic agents  have no use in UA .There is a nagging belief  THAT  there could  be group of patients  with UA , still might benefit from thrombolysis as total occlusions have been documented  in some cases with UA.This is  especially true in peri-infarction unstable angina (Pre & post) as there is a fluctuation  between total and subtotal occlusions ) .But bed side recognition of this population is very difficult.

Many would consider this issue as redundant now,  since  most of  these patients  are taken up for emergency revascularisations

Read Full Post »

How diuretics reduce blood pressure ?

Posted in Cardiology - Clinical, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 8, 2008| Leave a Comment »

Diuretics are the most commonly prescribed anti hypertensive agents.Thiazide diuretics which  was introduced many decades ago ,  lost popularity  in recent years ,  again got a second life after  the publication of ALLHAT trial recently. Now diuretics has become the  the drug of first choice in almost any hypertension unless any specific contraindication.

The most commonly used thaizide is hydrochlorthiazide ,and chlorthalidone.The blood pressure reducing effect is so consistent and smooth , all the currently popular molecules like ACE inhibitors and ARBs come with a combination with thiazide. While every one is clear diuretics are  effective anti hypertensive agent How it does is not clear.

How does a diuretic reduce blood pressure?

A. The exact mechanism is not clear. May not be uniformly effective in all patients  with HT.

B . Salt sensitive HT respond well to diuretics.

C. Volume correction /free water clearance might be a factor

D. Direct effect on vascular smoth muscle documented.The sodium transporter is blocked and  hence   calcium : sodium exchange is prevented .This depletes  intracellular calcium  in vascular smooth muscle cells .Less calcium for actin myosin interaction and hence vasodilatation

E. Thiazides combine well with all other antihypertensive drugs (ACEI, ARB, Beata blockers, calcium blockers)

F. Loop diuretics  like frusemide  can never be  a good antihypertensive agent.

Read Full Post »

In ACC/AHA guidelines, how can a grade one recommendation be based on type C evidence ?

Posted in Cardiology -Interventional -PCI, cardiology-ethics, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 7, 2008| Leave a Comment »

CURRENT   CARDIOLOGY  PRACTICE: EVIDENCE  OR  EXPERIENCE  BASED ?    AN  ANALYSIS OF  ACC/AHA  GUIDELINES.

S. Venkatesan,  Madras Medical College. Chennai

 

If  a  major therapeutic procedure is adviced based on simply by experience or expert opinion  how can we say evidence based medicine is practiced !

 

                                    Evidence based cardiology  is  the  buzz word  in global cardiovascular  health care  organizations. All diagnostic  and therapeutic  interventions are  undergoing  rigorous randomized  trials  for  proof of  efficacy  and  safety. ACC/AHA   have published  management guidelines and it  has been accepted  as de-facto standard of clinical cardiology practice world wide.  In these guidelines  class  1  indication  is defined as Conditions for which there is evidence for and/or general agreement that the procedure is useful and effective. These indications are supported by three levels of evidence.(A,B,C) .It has been observed,   many of the recommendations  in  class 1  were supported by only level  C  evidence. (Expert consensus or  agreement  ). We  analysed how much of todays guidelines is  agreement based  and  how much is evidence based. The  latest  practice  guidelines  of  ACC/AHA   for  Acute myocardial infarction , Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction , chronic  stable angina  ,coronary angiography  were analysed. The  no  of  class 1  indications  were counted  in each set of guidelines  and  each  of the indication were  sub grouped with reference to the  levels of  evidence  to which it was supported. There  were a total  of 210  class 1  indications.

  

 

Class  1

Level A

Class   1

Level  B

Class  1

Level  C

P value

1A vs 1C

AMI(54)

7

25

22

<.0001

UA  (66)

11

26

29

<.0001

CSA(59)

8

29

22

<.0001

CAG(31)

3

12

16

<.0001

Total(210)

29(13.9%)

92(43.8%)

89(42.4%)

<.001

 13.9%   of class 1  indications were based on  level  A evidence.  42.4%  of class 1 indication were based  on Level C  ( agreement  of experts).Though evidence based cardiology   is   considered  to  define  the  standards in  Cardiology  practice  in reality  we lack evidence in most of the situations. 

                                       We  conclude  that  consensus or  agreement  based cardiology  practice is the dominant theme in current   ACC/AHA 

Read Full Post »

Ironies in cardiology – Sinus rhythm loses the battle with atrial fibrillation in cardiac failure !

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2008| 1 Comment »

 

The debate of rate control verses rhythm control in atrial fibrillation  goes on and on. The AFFIRM, RACE,PIAF, STAF the HOT CAFE all went against sinus rhythm in the last 10 years . This was one of the settled contoversies in cardiology . The conclusion was ventricular  rate control was no way inferior to rhythm control in patients with SHT, CAD population .This made the electrophyiologists wonder how can a natural rhythm fare bad ! . But the findings  were consistent .Rhythm control neither improved the quality of life nor  it reduced the incidence of stroke. The later finding was very surprising but the explanation was convincing as stroke in elderly was more related to SHT, CAD, DM etc than  AF itself. The source of emboli in ischemic stroke could come any where distal to LA .The big assumtion that all strokes in elderly  should come from LA appendage or the body  of LA was  premature and  wrong. What prevented stroke in AF was not restoration of SR but administration of oral anticoagulants with adequate INR.(2-3)

Having failed to document superiority in elderly  population   , the  logic machine  strongly suggested restoring SR  in patients with CHF,  will atleast provide hemodynamic and also survival  benefit .

And thus came the AF-CHF trial  published in NEJM 2008

Alas !  AF-CHF  also found there is no useful purpose of restoring sinus rhythm in patients  with atrial fibrillation and cardiac failure. In fact patients in SR fared little worse !

 Why . . .  why . . . why ?

Should we ask the seemingly absurd question !

Is sinus rhythm poorly tolerated by cardiac failure  patients ?

It is some times possible atrial fibrillation by itself could be a mechanism to amplify the  cardiac reserve by which it provides a  relatively high ventricular rate to improve the cardiac index  . Even though the optimal ventricular rate in AF is around 80-90 at times of need it has to increase to 120-130. Patients in class 3 CHF and AF often achieve this in times of demand .This is not possible in patients who are getting rhythm control drugs and further patients in SR can  not increase the HR suddenly from 80 -130  .

So is this a  wild imagination !   AF could be a safety valve mechanism in CHF to increase the HR . Where the atria come to the rescue of ventricle like a rate adaptive pacemaker .

The other logical* ! argument is that  there  is nothing wrong with restoring  SR , but the  methods to achieve and  maintain SR  is too cumbersome and results in adverse outcome .The currently available  drugs are too toxic for the purpose  .

If we have a simple and safe way to restore SR in these patients it should always be superior to AF .

But it is a well  known fact  that , whatever be the rhythm or rate the ultimate outcome will be dictated by the LV function, mitral valve function etc.

 Read abstract of AF-CHF

Rhythm Control versus Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

Denis Roy, M.D., Mario Talajic, M.D., Stanley Nattel, M.D., ., for the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure Investigators

<!–

Rhythm Control versus Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

— Denis Roy, M.D., Mario Talajic, M.D., Stanley Nattel, M.D.,  the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure Investigators* –>ABSTRACT

Background It is common practice to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. This approach is based in part on data indicating that atrial fibrillation is a predictor of death in patients with heart failure and suggesting that the suppression of atrial fibrillation may favorably affect the outcome. However, the benefits and risks of this approach have not been adequately studied. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) with control of the ventricular rate (rate control) in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was the time to death from cardiovascular causes.
Results A total of 1376 patients were enrolled (682 in the rhythm-control group and 694 in the rate-control group) and were followed for a mean of 37 months. Of these patients, 182 (27%) in the rhythm-control group died from cardiovascular causes, as compared with 175 (25%) in the rate-control group (hazard ratio in the rhythm-control group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.59 by the log-rank test). Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups, including death from any cause (32% in the rhythm-control group and 33% in the rate-control group), stroke (3% and 4%, respectively), worsening heart failure (28% and 31%), and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or worsening heart failure (43% and 46%). There were also no significant differences favoring either strategy in any predefined subgroup.
Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, as compared with a rate-control strategy.
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

What is pulse deficit ? What is the mechanism of pulse deficit ? Where does it occur ?

Posted in Cardiology - Clinical, Infrequently asked questions in cardiology (iFAQs), tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 13, 2008| 5 Comments »

Pulse deficit is a clinical sign wherein , one is able to find a difference in count between heart beat (Apical beat or Heart sounds ) and  peripheral pulse .This occurs even as the heart is  contracting , the pulse is not reaching the periphery.This can occur in few clinical situations .

1 . Atrial fibrillation.

2. Very early diastolic  ventricular  ectopic beats

3. Some patients with Pacemaker.

The mechanism is  , the ventricular contractions are  too weak and unable to open the aortic valve  (Or opens feebly*)  , but at the same time they are good enough to close the mitral valve. To open the aortic valve it has to generate atleast 60-80 mmhg pressure , while mitral valve closes even  as LV generates  8-14mmhg  .(LV/LA pressure cross over). So intermitently the  second heart sound  is missed while S1 is retained,  producing more heart sounds and less pulse count in the periphery. The S1 is either felt or heard at the apex but the corresponding pulse is missing . Further , this intermittent absence of  S2  results in totally irregular S1 /S 2 relation.

 

 

Why some of the contractions of LV is too weak to open the aortic valve ?

Because the RR interval varies , the ventricular filling also varies , diastole duration is constantly changing some of the diastole are too short  and LV hardly gets filled , as the LV force of contraction is directly decided by the LVEDV and LV  fibre length these contractions are too weak.

Other published studies

There has been some doppler observations ,where there is a midventricular LV blood flow reversal in atrial fibrillation that could  explain the pulse deficit . Mechanism of production of pulse deficit in atrial fibrillation: assessment by blood flow dynamics

Mawatari K, Sanada J, Kuroiwa N, Okumiya K, Nakamura K, Hashimoto S.

Second Department of Internal Medicine, Kagoshima University School of Medicine.

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3221309

What is the clinical significance of pulse deficit ?

Currently there is no great clinical significance of this phenomenon. But an astute clinician will pick up this sign and it may indicate underlying LV dysfunction. In patients with PPM,  pulse deficit  suggests  pacemaker malfunction .Some patients with cardiac tamponade &  pulsus paradoxus  systolic  blood pressure falls too low to make the pulse feeble or not palpable in the periphery .This situation may mimic a pulse deficit if not recognised.

Dr.S.Venkatesan ,Madras Medical College , Chennai, India

* What is the evidence for intermittent absence or feeble Aortic valve opening in Atrial fibrillation ? I could find this from the book written by Harvey Feigenbaum. whom we consider Father of Echocardiography

 

 

Read Full Post »

Journal club debates : Can a “Aim of a study” be wrong ?

Posted in cardiology -Therapeutics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 27, 2008| 2 Comments »

Peer review of an article even in major journals never scrutinise the “Aim of  a study ” . However big is the journal,  they seem to bother only about the authors, materials, methods, and statistical analysis.  If only they peer review an article , right from the “Aim of the study” like ,

  • Who asks the research questions?
  • Who  defines the aim of the study ?
  • Who decides which drug to be compared with which drug ?
  • Who steers the steering commitee of a trial ?

If only , we could answer these questions without bias , pharma industry and their  regulators  would have ,  far more better image than what they have now !

A typical example for , the aim of the study  to be  wrong  , is  the “ONTARGET’ study on telmisartan.

Here they ( Who ? ) raised an inappropriate  question of     “Non inferiority” of one drug with other  without any  valid reason to compare these two drugs that will benefit the man kind !

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts