P544The importance of contractile reserve when assessing asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis.

Asymptomatic patients may exhibit symptoms during objective exercise testing, but whether symptoms are due to the obstructively of the valve (typified by the mean gradient) or underlying ventricular function remains unknown. While the mean gradient is an easy parameter to measure no consensus about the measurement of contractile reserve exists. Longitudinal abnormalities may occur in the presence of a normal ejection fraction and the augmentation of these parameters is poorly described. To obtain an objective regarding patients exercise ability is best determined using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. We therefore examined echocardiographic predictors of exercise ability during cardiopulmonary exercise testing.24 asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction underwent stress echocardiography with simultaneous cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The primary assessment of exercise ability was the VO2peak and OUES. Echocardiography was measured at rest and during maximal exercise (defined as RER > 1)OUES and VO2peak showed a poor relationship with conventional parameters of severity including peak and mean gradients, AVA and dimensionless index, resting systolic function (by EF and TDI). During exercise systolic augmentation had a good relationship with exercise ability but the exercise mean gradient and exercise LVEF did not.Longitudinal systolic function and particularly systolic augmentation is the strongest predictor of exercise ability when compared to conventional measures of severity.VO2peakOUESS' exerciseRho=0.69 (p=0.001)R= 0.71 (p=0.001)S' restRho=0.52 (p=0.01)R= 0.44 (p=ns)Rest AV max VRho= 0.09 (p=ns)R= -0.08 (p=ns)Rest AV mean PGRho= 0.34 (p=ns)R=-0.10 (p=ns)Exercise AV max VRho=0.43 (p=0.05)R=0.23 (p=ns)Exercise AVmean PGRho= 0.51 (p=0.001)R=0.26 (p=ns)Rest AVARho=0.40 (p=ns)Rho=0.46 (p=0.04)Dimensionless indexRho=0.15 (p=ns)R=0.13 (p=ns)LVEF restRho=-0.18 (p=ns)R=-0.32 (p=ns)LVEF exerciseRho=0.18 (p=ns)R=0.17 (p=ns)S' - systolic velocity; V - velocity; AV - aortic valve; AVA- aortic valve area; LVEF - left ventricular ejection fraction.

Is whole colonic imaging necessary for symptoms of change in bowel habit and/or rectal bleeding?

AIM: Following the introduction of a 2-week-wait (2ww) cancer pathway, many units are triaging patients with change in bowel habit (CIBH) and/or rectal bleeding (RB) straight to colonoscopy. Evidence suggests that right-sided colonic cancer does not present with these symptoms, hence imaging the left colon only is satisfactory. If this were substantiated, patients could be offered a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) alone. This study aimed to review presenting symptoms of patients diagnosed with a right-sided colonic malignancy and assess whether their tumours would be missed based on this practice. METHOD: This is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent curative resection for a proximal colonic malignancy over a 4-year period. Two-week-wait referral proforma and case notes were analysed for mode of presentation. RESULTS: Of 206 elective right hemicolectomies performed, 20/206 (9.7%) patients presented in the absence of either iron deficiency anaemia or palpable abdominal mass. Twelve patients had polyposis identified in the left colon and eight patients had no left-sided colonic pathology. One patient had a strong family history of colon cancer (two first-degree relatives) in the group absent of left-sided pathology. CONCLUSION: Twelve patients who had left-sided polyposis and one patient with a strong family history would have undergone whole colonic imaging based on current colorectal cancer management guidelines. The remaining seven patients with right-sided cancer would have been missed if FS were the only investigation used. Patients presenting on the 2ww with symptoms of a CIBH and/or RB can be adequately investigated with a FS with a 3% chance of missing a proximal cancer.

Same Surgeon: Different Centre Equals Differing Lymph Node Harvest following Colorectal Cancer Resection.

Introduction. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of surgeon relocation on lymph node (LN) retrieval in colorectal cancer (CRC) resection. Methods. The study population was 213 consecutive patients undergoing CRC resection by a single surgeon, at two units: unit one 110 operations (2002-2005) and unit two 103 (2005-2009). LN yields and case mix were compared. Results. Median LN harvests were significantly different between the two centres: unit 1: 13 nodes/patient and unit 2: 22 nodes/patient (P < .001). In unit one 42% of cases were LN positive and in unit two 48% (P = .398). There was no difference in case mix. Multivariate analysis identified unit (P < .001) and pathologist (P = .007) as independent predictors of harvest. Conclusions. A surgeon moving units can experience significantly different LN yield following CRC resection. Both units comply with national standards, but the "surgeon's results" at the two units appear to be pathologist dependent. This has implications for nodal harvest as a surrogate marker of surgical quality.