Search

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TCM) is a condition characterized by transient left ventricular dysfunction and apical ballooning, best seen on an echocardiogram or left ventriculogram. It mimics acute myocardial infarction but without evidence of coronary artery disease on an angiogram. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an autosomal dominant heart muscle disease that is significant with hypertrophy of the left ventricle with various morphologies. We hereby report a case of TCM in a male patient with a known history of HCM. The patient’s hemodynamic findings were challenging because the TCM produced an increased left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient that was previously not seen on his prior echocardiogram or cardiac catheterizations. Assessment and continuous monitoring are warranted in such a rare case. Supportive care afterward with beta blockers, along with echocardiogram surveillance, are the mainstay of management of such a patient.

Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary angiography (CA), adequate hydration and minimizing volume of contrast media (CM) are class 1b recommendations for preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Current data are insufficient to justify specific recommendations about isoosmolar vs. low-osmolar contrast media by the ACCF/AHA/ SCA I guidelines. Methods Randomized trials comparing IOCM to LOCM in CKD stage 3 and above patients undergoing CA, and reporting incidence of CIN (defined by a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline) were included in the analysis. The secondary outcome of the study was the incidence of serum creatinine increase by >1mg/dl. Results A total of 2839 patients were included in 10 trials, in which 1430 patients received IOCM and 1393 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM was not associated with significant benefit in preventing CIN (OR=0.72, [CI: 0.50–1.04], P =0.08, I2=59%). Subgroup analysis revealed non-significant difference in incidence of CIN based on baseline use of N -acetylcystine (NAC), diabetes status, ejection fraction, and whether percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary angiography alone was performed. The difference between IOCM and LOCM was further attenuated when restricted to studies with larger sample size (>250 patients) (OR=0.93; [CI: 0.66–1.30]) or when compared with non-ionic LOCM (OR=0.79, [CI: 0.52–1.21]). Conclusion In patients with CKD stage 3 and above undergoing coronary angiography, use of IOCM showed overall non-significant difference in incidence of CIN compared to LOCM. The difference was further attenuated when IOCM was compared with non-ionic LOCM.

Introduction Inadvertent malposition of a pacemaker ventricular lead into the left ventricle is an uncommon event, and its actual incidence is probably unknown. It may be underestimated and underreported because of a possible asymptomatic course. A 12-lead electrocardiogram is important to confirm proper placement. Case presentation We report a case of a 60-year-old Caucasian man with a malpositioned transvenous permanent pacing lead into the left ventricle via a patent foramen ovale that was not suspected during implantation and went undiagnosed for two years without complications. The patient remained asymptomatic as he was being treated with oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation. The decision was made to leave the pacing lead in place and continue lifelong warfarin therapy. Conclusions Inadvertent insertion of pacing wires into the left ventricle is a potentially dangerous complication that may happen under fluoroscopic guidance and may be overlooked by routine pacemaker interrogation. It is advisable to obtain a 12-lead electrocardiogram during or immediately after transvenous pacemaker implantation rather than use a routine pacemaker interrogation or a limited electrocardiogram.