Usefulness of high-speed rotational coronary venous angiography during cardiac resynchronization therapy

Standard coronary venous angiography (SCVA) provides a static, fixed projection of the coronary venous (CV) tree. High-speed rotational coronary venous angiography (RCVA) is a novel method of mapping CV anatomy using dynamic, multiangle visualization. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of RCVA during cardiac resynchronization therapy. Digitally acquired rotational CV angiograms from 49 patients (mean age 69 +/- 11 years) who underwent left ventricular lead implantation were analyzed. RCVA, which uses rapid isocentric rotation over a 110 degrees arc, acquiring 120 frames/angiogram, was compared with SCVA, defined as 2 static orthogonal views: right anterior oblique 45 degrees and left anterior oblique 45 degrees . RCVA demonstrated that the posterior vein-to-coronary sinus (CS) angle and the left marginal vein-to-CS angle were misclassified in 5 and 11 patients, respectively, using SCVA. RCVA identified a greater number of second-order tributaries with diameters >1.5 mm than SCVA. The CV branch selected for lead placement was initially identified in 100% of patients using RCVA but in only 74% of patients using SCVA. RCVA showed that the best angiographic view for visualizing the CS and its tributaries differed significantly among different areas of the CV tree and among patients. The area of the CV tree that showed less variability was the CS ostium, which had a fairly constant relation with the spine in shallow right anterior oblique and left anterior oblique projections. In conclusion, RCVA provided a more precise map of CV anatomy and the spatial relation of venous branches. It allowed the identification of fluoroscopic views that could facilitate cannulation of the CS. The final x-ray view displaying the appropriate CV branch for left ventricular lead implantation was often different from the conventional left anterior oblique and right anterior oblique views. RCVA identified the target branch for lead implantation more often than SCVA.     

Unusual presentation of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma as obstructive jaundice 15 years after liver transplant

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence is a known limitation of liver transplant. Recurrence rates have been reported in 10% to 60% of patients within an average of 1 to 2 years following liver transplant. We report a case of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma 15 years after orthotopic liver transplant, presenting initially as obstructive bile duct compression as detected by cholangiogram. Laparotomy revealed hepatocellular carcinoma invading the common bile duct without any mass in the liver parenchyma. The main focus of the case is the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography image, which is unique in the setting of liver disease following liver transplant.     

Safety, feasibility, and outcome of retrievable vena cava filters in high-risk surgical patients

OBJECTIVE: Retrievable vena cava filters (rVCFs) are being used frequently in the perioperative setting for preventing pulmonary embolism. The indications and safety profile for placement of preoperative retrievable vena cava filters (rVCFs) remains undefined, however. This study sought to determine the safety, feasibility, and outcome of rVCFs in bariatric surgery patients, who are known as a high-risk population for periprocedural deep vein thrombus (DVT) or pulmonary embolus, or both. METHODS: Between June 1, 2004, and October 1, 2005, protocols were developed and implemented at a tertiary referral hospital for placement of rVCFs in 59 consecutive high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass or duodenal switch if they met any of the following criteria: body mass index >55 kg/m(2), hypercoagulable state, severe immobility, venous stasis, or previous history of DVT or pulmonary embolus. Using both Site-Rite (Bard Access Systems, Salt Lake City, Utah) ultrasound and fluoroscopy, Günther Tulip (Cook, Inc., Bloomington, Ind) rVCFs were placed immediately after general anesthesia, just preceding the bariatric procedure. The internal jugular vein was the preferred approach, followed by the femoral vein. Retrieval was performed after the fourth postoperative week. RESULTS: During a 16-month period, 60 rVCFs were placed in 61 attempts, 57 through the internal jugular vein and three through the femoral vein. Six patients refused the retrieval attempt. Of the remaining 54 rVCFs, the primary retrieval success was 90% (49/54), with all failures due to severe filter tilt. The secondary retrieval success was 100% (3/3). The two remaining patients refused secondary retrieval attempt. The mean +/- standard deviation dwell time of the rVCFs was 63 +/- 30 days. No procedure complications occurred in placement or retrieval. One patient developed a clinical pulmonary embolism with the filter in place while not receiving postoperative anticoagulation. No patients died. The mean body mass index of the patients was 61 +/- 10 kg/m(2). CONCLUSION: Placement and retrieval of retrievable vena cava filters in high-risk bariatric surgery patients is safe, feasible, and offers potential clinical benefit to patients requiring short-term protection from pulmonary embolism.