Tajouri, Tanya H.

Objective To compare the prevalence and patterns of anomalous coronary artery origin from the opposite sinus (ACAOS) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). Methods Retrospective review of consecutive patients with surgically excised BAV and TAV was performed from 1994 to 2015. Clinical notes, echocardiograms, coronary angiograms, CT angiographies, and pathology reports were reviewed. ACAOS included right coronary artery from the left cusp, left circumflex artery from the right cusp and left main or left anterior descending artery from the right cusp. Results 2371 (years 1994–2015) and 1679 (years 2009–2015) consecutive patients with pathology-confirmed BAV and TAV, respectively, and defined preoperative coronary anatomy were identified. A left dominant coronary circulation was present in 386 (18%) patients with BAV and 179 (11%) patients with TAV (p<0.001). ACAOS was identified in 43 (1.8%) patients with BAV and 15 (0.9%) patients with TAV, p=0.02. Among patients with BAV and ACAOS, the most common phenotype was right-left fusion (n=34, 79%) with present raphe (n=36, 84%), with no association between BAV phenotype and ACAOS type. On multivariate analysis, BAV status and size of the mid-ascending aorta were independently associated with ACAOS (OR 3.29; CI 1.26 to 8.6; p=0.02; OR 0.93; CI 0.87 to 0.98; p=0.01; respectively). Only two patients with ACAOS, one with BAV and one with TAV, had a perioperative coronary ischaemic event. Conclusions The prevalence of the potentially malignant ACAOS is significantly higher (threefold higher odds) in patients with BAV as compared with TAV, yet remains uncommon in absolute terms. Most patients with BAV and ACAOS had right-left cusp fusion and present raphe. Perioperative coronary events are rare in patients with ACAOS.

BackgroundLittle is known about the use of advance directives (ADs) in patients who have implantable cardiac pacemakers (PMs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent implantation of a cardiac PM at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during 2006 and 2007, and determined the prevalence and contents of ADs in these patients.ResultsDuring the study period, 205 residents of Olmsted County (men, 53%) underwent PM implantation (mean age [standard deviation] at implantation, 77 [15] years). Overall, 120 patients (59%) had ADs. Of these, 63 ADs (53%) were executed more than 12 months before and 33 (28%) were executed after PM implantation. Many patients specifically mentioned life‐prolonging treatments in their ADs: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 76 (63%); mechanical ventilation, 56 (47%); and hemodialysis, 31 (26%). Pain control was mentioned in 79 ADs (66%) and comfort measures were mentioned in 42 ADs (35%). Furthermore, the AD of many patients contained a general statement about end‐of‐life care (e.g., no “heroic measures”). However, only one AD (1%) specifically addressed the end‐of‐life management of the PM.ConclusionsMore than half of the patients with PMs in our study had executed an AD, but only one patient specifically mentioned her PM in her AD. These results suggest that patients with PMs should be encouraged to execute ADs and specifically address end‐of‐life device management in their ADs. Doing so may prevent end‐of‐life ethical dilemmas related to PM management.