Aortic Valve Replacement in 8 Adults with Anomalous Aortic Origin of Coronary Artery.

Patients with anomalous origin of a coronary artery during aortic valve replacement (AVR) are at risk of coronary compromise. Large case series are lacking. In this retrospective study, we review our experience with this condition. From August 2014 through June 2016, 8 adult patients (mean age, 74 ± 17.5 yr; age range, 33-86 yr; 5 men) with anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery underwent surgical or transcatheter AVR at our institution. Six patients had aortic stenosis; 2 had aortic insufficiency, one of whom had an associated aortic root aneurysm. In 7 patients, the left anomalous coronary artery originated from the right aortic sinus, and in one, the right coronary artery arose from the left cusp. The anatomic course was revealed by means of 3-dimensional computed tomographic angiography. No patient underwent primary aortic reimplantation of the anomalous artery. Two had the artery mobilized from encircling the annulus too closely and then underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Two high-risk patients underwent transcatheter AVR. After surgical AVR, 2 patients had perioperative myocardial infarction caused by coronary compression, so percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. One patient died of sepsis 3 months after discharge from the hospital. In our patients, AVR sometimes led to severe perioperative complications. Successful AVR depended on 3-dimensional computed tomographic angiographic findings, individual anatomic variations, and appropriate treatment choices.

Perioperative Use of Focused Transthoracic Cardiac Ultrasound: A Survey of Current Practice and Opinion.

BACKGROUND: The advent of portable ultrasound machines in recent years has led to greater availability of focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) in the perioperative and critical care setting. To our knowledge, its use in the perioperative setting among anesthesiologists remains undefined. We sought to assess the use of FoCUS by members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) in clinical practice, to identify variations in its application, to outline limits to its use, and to understand the level of training of physicians using this technology. METHODS: A 26-question anonymous and voluntary online survey assessing the participants' training level with FoCUS, frequency of use, and opinions regarding incorporating it into residency training and developing a pathway to basic certification. The survey was distributed to the members of the SCA via email. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 379 of 3660 members of the SCA (10%). Of the respondents, the majority (67%) had completed a cardiovascular anesthesiology fellowship with 58% identifying their practice as academic, while 37% stated they were in private practice, and 6% were military/Veterans Administration. Most (84%) of the respondents practiced in North America. Eighty-one percent reported familiarity with FoCUS, while 47% stated they use it in their clinical practice. Those practicing in North America were significantly less likely to utilize FoCUS in their practice as compared to other respondents. With regard to training and certification, 88% believe FoCUS education should be integrated into residency training programs and 74% believe there should be a pathway to basic certification for FoCUS. CONCLUSIONS: While most cardiovascular anesthesiologists are familiar with FoCUS, a minority have integrated it into their practice. Roadblocks such as lack of training, the fear of missing diagnoses, lack of resources, and the lack of a formal certification process must be addressed to allow for more widespread use of perioperative cardiac ultrasound.