Coronary Artery Disease: Lindenfeld J

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.

Mandell MS, Lindenfeld J, Tsou MY, Zimmerman M. · No affiliation provided · World J Gastroenterol. · Pubmed #18567069 links to  free full text

Abstract: Physicians previously thought that heart disease was rare in patients with end stage liver disease. However, recent evidence shows that the prevalence of ischemic heart disease and cardiomyopathy is increased in transplant candidates compared to most other surgical candidates. Investigators estimate that up to 26% of all liver transplant candidates have at least one critical coronary artery stenosis and that at least half of these patients will die perioperatively of cardiac complications. Cardiomyopathy also occurs in greater frequency. While all patients with advanced cardiac disease have defects in cardiac performance, a larger than expected number of patients have classical findings of dilated, restrictive and hypertropic cardiomyopathy. This may explain why up to 56% of patients suffer from hypoxemia due to pulmonary edema following transplant surgery. There is considerable controversy on how to screen transplant candidates for the presence of heart disease. Questions focus upon, which patients should be screened and what tests should be used. This review examines screening strategies for transplant candidates and details the prognostic value of common tests used to identify ischemic heart disease. We also review the physiological consequences of cardiomyopathy in transplant candidates and explore the specific syndrome of "cirrhotic cardiomyopathy".

Ghali JK, Krause-Steinrauf HJ, Adams KF, Khan SS, Rosenberg YD, Yancy CW, Young JB, Goldman S, Peberdy MA, Lindenfeld J. · Cardiac Centers of Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana 71103, USA. · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #14680739 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the influence of gender on baseline characteristics, response to treatment, and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). BACKGROUND: Under-representation of women in HF clinical trials has limited our understanding of gender-related differences in patients with HF. METHODS: The impact of gender was assessed in the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) which randomized 2,708 patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV and LVEF < or =0.35 to bucindolol versus placebo. Women (n = 593) were compared with men (n = 2,115). Mean follow-up period was two years. RESULTS: Significant differences in baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were found. Women were younger, more likely to be black, had a higher prevalence of nonischemic etiology, higher right and left ventricular ejection fraction, higher heart rate, greater cardiothoracic ratio, higher prevalence of left bundle branch block, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and lower plasma norepinephrine level. Ischemic etiology and measures of severity of HF were found to be predictors of prognosis in women and men. However, differences in the predictive values of various variables were noted; most notably, coronary artery disease and LVEF appear to be stronger predictors of prognosis in women. In the nonischemic patients, women had a significantly better survival rate compared with men. CONCLUSIONS: In HF patients with impaired LVEF, significant gender differences are present, and the prognostic predictive values of some variables vary in magnitude between women and men. The survival advantage of women is confined to patients with nonischemic etiology.

Bisognano JD, Lindenfeld J, Hammond E, Zisman LS. · University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, NY, USA. · J Heart Lung Transplant. · Pubmed #15737767 No free full text.

Abstract: The etiology of cardiac allograft vasculopathy is not known, but may be preceded by both endothelial cell and smooth muscle dysfunction of the epicardial coronary arteries. We here report a case of acute, reversible coronary artery vasospasm which caused a myocardial infarction in a cardiac transplant recipient. The patient had a complex post-transplant course, including an episode of severe vascular rejection several months before this presentation. Interestingly, the event was captured in its early stages because the patient presented with chest pain: a rare event because of the denervation of the transplanted heart. Our ability to document the etiology of this patient's myocardial infarction supports the concept that cardiac allograft vasculopathy is a progressive disease that, in its early stages, may include a reversible component of abnormal vasoreactivity.