BackgroundAs coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has emerged as a non-invasive alternative for evaluation of coronary anatomy with a lower referral threshold than invasive coronary angiography (ICA), the prevalence of coronary anomalies in CCTA may more closely reflect the true prevalence in the general population. Morphological features of coronary anomalies can be evaluated more precisely by CCTA than by ICA, which might lead to a higher identification of congenital coronary anomalies in CCTA compared to ICA.To evaluate the incidence, clinical and morphological features of the anatomy of patients with coronary anomalies detected either by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with prospective ECG-triggering or invasive coronary angiography (ICA).MethodsConsecutive patients underwent 64-slice CCTA (n = 1′759) with prospective ECG-triggering or ICA (n = 9′782) and coronary anatomy was evaluated for identification of coronary anomalies to predefined criteria (origin, course and termination) according to international recommendations.ResultsThe prevalence of coronary anomalies was 7.9% (n = 138) in CCTA and 2.1% in ICA (n = 203; p < 0.01). The most commonly coronary anomaly detected by CCTA was myocardial bridging 42.8% (n = 59) vs. 21.2% (n = 43); p < 0.01, while with ICA an absent left main trunk was the most observed anomaly 36.0% (n = 73; p < 0.01). In 9.4% (n = 13) of identified coronary anomalies in CCTA 9.4% were potentially serious coronary anaomalies, defined as a course of the coronary artery between aorta and pulmonary artery were identified.ConclusionThe prevalence of coronary anomalies is substantially higher with CCTA than ICA even after exclusion of patients with myocardial bridging which is more frequently found with CCTA. This suggests that the true prevalence of coronary anomalies in the general population may have been underestimated based on ICA.

No abstract

We have evaluated the impact of increased body mass on the quality of myocardial perfusion imaging using a latest-generation g-camera with cadmium-zinc-telluride semiconductor detectors in patients with high ($40 kg/m 2 ) or very high ($45 kg/m 2 ) body mass index (BMI). Methods: We enrolled 81 patients, including 18 with no obesity (BMI , 30 kg/m 2 ), 17 in World Health Organization obese class I (BMI, 30-34.9 kg/m 2 ), 15 in class II (BMI, 35-39.9 kg/m 2 ), and 31 in class III (BMI $ 40 kg/m 2 ), including 15 with BMI $ 45 kg/m 2 . Image quality was scored as poor (1), moderate (2), good (3), or excellent (4). Patients with BMI $ 45 kg/m 2 and nondiagnostic image quality (#2) were rescanned after repositioning to better center the heart in the field of view. Receiver-operating-curve analysis was applied to determine the BMI cutoff required to obtain diagnostic image quality ($3). Results: Receiver-operating-curve analysis resulted in a cutoff BMI of 39 kg/m 2 (P , 0.001) for diagnostic image quality. In patients with BMI $ 40 kg/m 2 , image quality was nondiagnostic in 81%; after CT-based attenuation correction this decreased to 55%. Repositioning further improved image quality. Rescanning on a conventional SPECT camera resulted in diagnostic image quality in all patients with BMI $ 45 kg/m 2 . Conclusion: Patients with BMI $ 40 kg/m 2 should be scheduled for myocardial perfusion imaging on a conventional SPECT camera, as it is difficult to obtain diagnostic image quality on a cadmium-zinc-telluride camera.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.