Coronary Artery Disease: Gillam LD

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00094, Anonymous00095, Anonymous00096, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098, Anonymous00099, Anonymous00100, Anonymous00101. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18342240 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00125, Anonymous00126, Anonymous00127, Anonymous00128, Anonymous00129, Anonymous00130, Anonymous00131, Anonymous00132. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #18316491 links to  free full text

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00137, Anonymous00138, Anonymous00139, Anonymous00140, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145, Anonymous00146. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18314889 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain.The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Fram DB, Azar RR, Ahlberg AW, Gillam LD, Mitchel JF, Kiernan FJ, Hirst JA, Mather JF, Ficaro E, Cyr G, Waters D, Heller GV. · Nuclear Cardiology Laboratory of the Henry Low Heart Center, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, PO Box 5037, Hartford, CT 06102-5037, USA. · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #12575975 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine how long nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) remains abnormal following transient myocardial ischemia. BACKGROUND: Acute rest MPI identifies myocardial ischemia with a high sensitivity when the radionuclide is injected during chest pain. However, the sensitivity of this technique is uncertain when the radionuclide is injected following the resolution of symptoms. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing successful coronary angioplasty were randomized into four equal groups. Tc-99m sestamibi was injected intravenously during the last balloon inflation (acute MPI) in 30 patients and then reinjected 1, 2, or 3 h later (delayed MPI). In a fourth group, the radiopharmaceutical was injected at 15 min following balloon deflation (delayed MPI). A final injection was performed at 24 to 48 h (late MPI) in 37 patients (93%). RESULTS: A perfusion defect was detected in all 30 acute MPI studies; in 7/10 patients (70%) injected at 15 min; in 11/30 patients (37%) injected at 1, 2, or 3 h; and in 7/37 patients (19%) injected at 24 to 48 h. Perfusion scores were 13.0 +/- 9.2 on acute MPI, 5.1 +/- 2.8 at 15 min (p < 0.001 vs. acute MPI); 2.6 +/- 3.0 at 1, 2, and 3 h (p < 0.001 vs. acute MPI); and 1.3 +/- 2.4 at 24 to 48 h (p < 0.001 vs. acute MPI; p < 0.03 vs. delayed MPI). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial perfusion imaging may remain abnormal for several hours following transient myocardial ischemia even when normal flow is restored in the epicardial coronary artery.

Mitchel JF, Fram DB, Gillam LD, Giri S, Waters DD, Kiernan FJ. · Division of Cardiology and Cardiac Laboratory, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT 06102, USA. · J Invasive Cardiol. · Pubmed #10745576 No free full text.

Abstract: The efficacy of local drug delivery in the treatment of coronary artery disease is limited by the relatively low delivery efficiency of the available devices. A unique local drug delivery device, the Infiltrator catheter (InterVentional Technologies, Inc.), has been designed specifically to enhance efficiency by injecting drugs directly into the arterial wall through microports mounted on the balloon surface. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficiency of delivery of this device in the porcine coronary model and to compare it to a previously validated device, the hydrogel balloon (Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, Minnesota). Studies were also performed to assess the pattern of intramural heparin deposition following delivery with the Infiltrator catheter and to assess the effect of the microports on vascular integrity. The efficiency of delivery was significantly greater with the Infiltrator catheter than with the hydrogel balloon (4.5% vs. 0.08%; p = 0.02). Similarly, the absolute amount of intramurally deposited heparin was greater with the Infiltrator (111.3 +/- 38.5 units vs. 2.4 +/- 0.85 units; p = 0.02) despite the fact that more heparin was delivered with the hydrogel catheter. Histologic studies revealed characteristic discrete puncture channels in the vessel wall due to penetration of the microports. Other than this histologic finding, there was no significant difference in the extent of architectural disruption between the Infiltrator and conventional balloon inflations. Fluorescein-labeled heparin studies revealed heparin to be diffusely distributed throughout the vessel wall immediately following delivery with the Infiltrator. We conclude that the Infiltrator catheterOs unique mechanism of delivery improves the efficiency of local drug delivery without excessive vessel wall trauma.