Comments for The Prepared Minds

Comment on Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Therapy in Low-Flow Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) Trial Analysis by Paul Schoenhagen

Paul Schoenhagen — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:42:05 +0000

See these as well:

Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis With Normal and Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(19):1845-1853.
http://www.thepreparedminds.com/archives/5204

Low gradient “severe” aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ojection fraction.
Alper Ozkan.
Cardiovascular Therapy and Diagnosis. 2012. 2(1).
http://www.thecdt.org/article/view/113

Grading aortic stenosis severity when the flow modifies the gradientvalve area correlation.
Patrizio Lancellotti.
Cardiovascular Therapy and Diagnosis. 2012. 2(1).
http://www.thecdt.org/article/view/127

Comment on Left Ventricular Energy Model Predicts Adverse Events in Women With Suspected Myocardial Ischemia: Results From the NHLBI-Sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study by Paul Schoenhagen

Paul Schoenhagen — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:37:05 +0000

Check the editorial:

Clinical applications of the areas under ESPVR.
Rachad M. Shoucri.
Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. 2013, June. 3(2).
http://www.thecdt.org/article/view/2042

Comment on Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment Report Released for Public Review by Paul Schoenhagen

Paul Schoenhagen — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:40:45 +0000

Global Environmental Threats: Why They are Hard to See and How a Medical Model May Contribute to Their Understanding.
Chivian E.
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2013, May 08.
http://www.thecdt.org/article/view/2044

Comment on Imaging in Population Science: Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance In 100,000 Participants of UK Biobank – Rationale, Challenges and Approaches by Juan Batlle

Juan Batlle — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:05:39 +0000

Amazing and ambitious study! This will truly represent a “world heritage site” of medical information.

Comment on Cardiovascular Risk Among Stable Individuals Suspected of Having Coronary Artery Disease With No Modifiable Risk Factors: Results from an International Multicenter Study of 5262 Patients by Jacobo Kirsch

Jacobo Kirsch — Fri, 31 May 2013 15:31:07 +0000

An interesting sub-cohort of the CONFIRM study!

Comment on Identification of Therapeutic Benefit from Revascularization in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Inducible Ischemia Versus Hibernating Myocardium by Gian Novaro

Gian Novaro — Tue, 28 May 2013 14:23:53 +0000

In contrast, refer to the recent post:

Inducible Myocardial Ischemia and Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction.
Panza JA, Holly TA, et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(18):1860-1870.
PMID: 23500234. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23500234.

Comment on Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomography Imaging of the Structural and Functional Changes of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension by Daniel Vargas

Daniel Vargas — Mon, 20 May 2013 16:56:56 +0000

This is a great review on the subject!

Comment on Intramural Haematoma Should be Referred to as Thrombosed-Type Aortic Dissection by andrew

andrew — Sun, 19 May 2013 05:27:39 +0000

I can’t agree more with Juan than non-contrast CT is one indispensable component of dissection protocol. In addition to detection, non-contrast CT is sometimes better than post-constrast scan for delineation of pericardial hematoma, one of the complication indicating poor prognosis.

Comment on Inducible Myocardial Ischemia and Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction by Paul Schoenhagen

Paul Schoenhagen — Thu, 16 May 2013 10:44:20 +0000

See editorial:

Is Ischemia Dead After STICH?
Gibbons RJ, Miller TD.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 May 7;61(18):1871-3.
PMID: 23500324. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23500324

Comment on Intramural Haematoma Should be Referred to as Thrombosed-Type Aortic Dissection by Jacobo Kirsch

Jacobo Kirsch — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:46:04 +0000

I see both points and I think that the issue here is the term ‘indispensable’. A non-enhanced CT is definitely helpful in cases where the crescentic intramural hematoma is thin enough to be missed in an enhanced CT. The vast majority of cases may not require it (I have no data to support the descriptor “vast majority”). It would be interesting to know what that would mean as well. Is it the same if you miss or postpone the diagnosis of a 1 mm thick intramural hematoma than a 10mm IM?