ABSTRACT
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is used to investigate suspected acute myocarditis, however most supporting data is retrospective and few studies have included parametric mapping. We aimed to investigate the utility of contemporary multiparametric CMR in a large prospective cohort of patients with suspected acute myocarditis, the impact of real-world variations in practice, the relationship between clinical characteristics and CMR findings and factors predicting outcome. 540 consecutive patients we recruited. The 113 patients diagnosed with myocarditis on CMR performed within 40 days of presentation were followed-up for 674 (504-915) days. 39 patients underwent follow-up CMR at 189 (166-209) days. CMR provided a positive diagnosis in 72% of patients, including myocarditis (40%) and myocardial infarction (11%). In multivariable analysis, male sex and shorter presentation-to-scan interval were associated with a diagnosis of myocarditis. Presentation with heart failure (HF) was associated with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), higher LGE burden and higher extracellular volume fraction. Lower baseline LVEF predicted follow-up LV dysfunction. Multiparametric CMR has a high diagnostic yield in suspected acute myocarditis. CMR should be performed early and include parametric mapping. Patients presenting with HF and reduced LVEF require closer follow-up while those with normal CMR may not require it.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To assess current practice of United Kingdom cardiologists with respect to patients with reported shellfish/iodine allergy, and in particular the use of iodinated contrast for elective coronary angiography. Moreover we have reviewed the current evidence-base and guidelines available in this area. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was send to 500 senior United Kingdom cardiologists (almost 50% cardiologists registered with British Cardiovascular Society) using email and first 100 responses used to analyze practise. We involved cardiologists performing coronary angiograms routinely both at secondary and tertiary centres. Three specific questions relating to allergy were asked: (1) History of shellfish/iodine allergy in pre-angiography assessment; (2) Treatments offered for shellfish/iodine allergy individuals; and (3) Any specific treatment protocol for shellfish/iodine allergy cases. We aimed to establish routine practice in United Kingdom for patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. We also performed comprehensive PubMed search for the available evidence of relationship between shellfish/iodine allergy and contrast media. RESULTS: A total of 100 responses were received, representing 20% of all United Kingdom cardiologists. Ninety-three replies were received from consultant cardiologists, 4 from non-consultant grades and 3 from cardiology specialist nurses. Amongst the respondents, 66% routinely asked about a previous history of shellfish/iodine allergy. Fifty-six percent would pre-treat these patients with steroids and anti-histamines. The other 44% do nothing, or do nonspecific testing based on their personal experience as following: (1) Skin test with 1 mL of subcutaneous contrast before intravenous contrast; (2) Test dose 2 mL contrast before coronary injection; (3) Close observation for shellfish allergy patients; and (4) Minimal evidence that the steroid and anti-histamine regime is effective but it makes us feel better. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that allergy to shellfish alters the risk of reaction to intravenous contrast more than any other allergy and asking about such allergies in pre-angiogram assessment will not provide any additional information except propagating the myth.
ABSTRACT
We report the case of an 85-year-old male with platypnoea-orthodeoxia associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and ectatic ascending aorta, in the absence of any significant pulmonary pathology.
