NETH J CRIT CARE VOLUME 16 NO 4 AUGUST 2012 A patient in his fifties presented to our Emergency Department with acute chest pain that started while lifting weights. The patient had a burning pain that radiated to his jaw and groin. Apart from quitting smoking cigarettes 1 year previously, the patient had no cardiac risk factors. On examination the patient had considerable pain and was restless, with bradycardia of 52/min and blood pressure of 98/32mmHg. The ECG showed a sinus bradycardia with an incomplete right-bundle-branch-block and upsloping ST segments. The chest x-ray showed no abnormalities. A cardiac ultrasound showed a distended ascending aorta and a minimal aorta valve insufficiency. Creatinine kinase and myoglobin levels were elevated with a normal troponin level. A CT-angiogram showed a type A aortic dissection into both carotid arteries and both iliac arteries. The patient was operated on and no complications were reported.

PURPOSE To compare image quality, radiation dose, and their relationship with heart rate of computed tomographic (CT) coronary angiographic scan protocols by using a 128-section dual-source CT scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approved the study; all patients gave informed consent. Two hundred seventy-two patients (175 men, 97 women; mean ages, 58 and 59 years, respectively) referred for CT coronary angiography were categorized according to heart rate: less than 65 beats per minute (group A) and 65 beats per minute or greater (group B). Patients were randomized to undergo prospective high-pitch spiral scanning and narrow-window prospective sequential scanning in group A (n = 160) or wide-window prospective sequential scanning and retrospective spiral scanning in group B (n = 112). Image quality was graded (1 = nondiagnostic; 2 = artifacts present, diagnostic; 3 = no artifacts) and compared (Mann-Whitney and Student t tests). RESULTS In group A, mean image quality grade was significantly lower with high-pitch spiral versus sequential scanning (2.67 ± 0.38 [standard deviation] vs 2.86 ± 0.21; P < .001). In a subpopulation (heart rate, <55 beats per minute), mean image quality grade was similar (2.81 ± 0.30 vs 2.94 ± 0.08; P = .35). In group B, image quality grade was comparable between sequential and retrospective spiral scanning (2.81 ± 0.28 vs 2.80 ± 0.38; P = .54). Mean estimated radiation dose was significantly lower (high-pitch spiral vs sequential scanning) in group A (for 100 kV, 0.81 mSv ± 0.30 vs 2.74 mSv ± 1.14 [P < .001]; for 120 kV, 1.65 mSv ± 0.69 vs 4.21 mSv ± 1.20 [P < .001]) and in group B (sequential vs retrospective spiral scanning) (for 100 kV, 4.07 mSv ± 1.07 vs 5.54 mSv ± 1.76 [P = .02]; for 120 kV, 7.50 mSv ± 1.79 vs 9.83 mSv ± 3.49 [P = .1]). CONCLUSION A high-pitch spiral CT coronary angiographic protocol should be applied in patients with regular and low (<55 beats per minute) heart rates; a sequential protocol is preferred in all others.

PURPOSE To determine and compare the prognostic value of cardiac computed tomographic (CT) angiography, coronary calcium scoring, and exercise electrocardiography (ECG) in patients with chest pain who are suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the local ethics committee approved the study. Patients (n = 471) without known CAD underwent exercise ECG and dual-source CT at a rapid assessment outpatient chest pain clinic. Coronary calcification and the presence of 50% or greater coronary stenosis (in one or more vessels) were assessed with CT. Exercise ECG results were classified as normal, ischemic, or nondiagnostic. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization and revascularization beyond 6 months. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic values, while clinical impact was assessed with the net reclassification improvement metric. RESULTS Follow-up was completed for 424 (90%) patients; the mean duration of follow-up was 2.6 years. A total of 44 MACEs occurred in 30 patients. Four of the MACEs were cardiac deaths and six were nonfatal myocardial infarctions. The presence of coronary calcification (hazard ratio [HR], 8.22 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.96, 34.51]), obstructive CAD (HR, 6.22 [95% CI: 2.77, 13.99]), and nondiagnostic stress test results (HR, 3.00 [95% CI: 1.26, 7.14]) were univariable predictors of MACEs. In the multivariable model, CT angiography findings (HR, 5.0 [95% CI: 1.7, 14.5]) and nondiagnostic exercise ECG results (HR, 2.9 [95% CI: 1.2, 7.0]) remained independent predictors of MACEs. CT angiography findings showed incremental value beyond clinical predictors and stress testing (global χ(2), 37.7 vs 13.7; P < .001), whereas coronary calcium scores did not have further incremental value (global χ(2), 38.2 vs 37.7; P = .40). CONCLUSION CT angiography findings are a strong predictor of future adverse events, showing incremental value over clinical predictors, stress testing, and coronary calcium scores. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11110744/-/DC1.

BACKGROUND The use of propofol often results in pain upon injection. Various strategies can be used to reduce this pain, ranging from the administration of analgesics to modification of the propofol emulsion. However, basic premedication protocol aimed at peri- and postoperative pain reduction could also sufficiently reduce propofol injection pain, rendering other special interventions redundant. METHODS With the approval of the Local Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, and after obtaining written informed consent from each patient included, 209 surgical patients (ASA physical status I-III) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive premedication consisting of 7.5 mg midazolam, 50 mg diclofenac and 1000 mg acetaminophen (all orally administered) and fentanyl (intravenously administered) or placebo medication the hour before surgery. In both groups a mixture of 40 mL propofol 1% with 2 mL lidocaine 1% was used to induce anesthesia. Pain scores were assessed using a verbal analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0-10. RESULTS The premedication group was found to have significantly less pain upon injection of propofol (median VAS 0+/-0-2) (median+/-interquartile range) when compared to the control group (median VAS 1.5+/-0-4; P=0.001). In addition, more patients in the premedication group experienced no pain at all. This effect was still present one hour after extubation. CONCLUSION Even when injection pain is reduced, the use of a premedication regimen clearly has additional value with respect to the patients' experience. Considering the low VAS scores observed overall, it might be worthwhile to reserve additional injection pain-reducing interventions for individual patients rather than adding them as a component of standard practice.