A 42-year old man with thrombophilia (prothrombin gene mutation) required the insertion of an inferior vena cava filter because of recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation. However, it penetrated through the retro-hepatic vena cava into the liver, being manifested by constant, blunt abdominal pain. Endovascular retrieval was considered of extreme risk, though a surgical approach was performed under cardiopulmonary bypass with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. The patient has recovered uneventfully with complete symptom relief.
A flail chest can occur when cardiopulmonary resuscitation causes extensive rib fractures. Despite successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if the flail chest is not treated, the patient may not survive regardless of the correction of the primary condition that caused the cardiac arrest. Therefore, if flail chest persists despite proper conservative management to correct the flail chest, active surgical management is essential. We present a successful surgical treatment with pectus bar for a patient with flail chest, caused by extensive segmental rib fractures sustained during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a massive pulmonary thromboembolism.
Background and aim of the study: In developed countries, the shortage of viable donors is the main limiting factor of heart transplantation. The aim of this study is to determine whether the same reality applies to Brazil. Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2014, 299 adult heart donor offers were studied in terms of donor profiles, and reasons of refusal. European donor scoring system was calculated, being high-risk donors defined as >17 points. Donor scoring system used to objectively determine the donor profile and correlate with donor acceptance and post-transplant primary graft dysfunction and recipient survival. Cox proportional hazard model was used in determining predictors of long-term mortality. Results: Rate of donor acceptance and heart transplants performed were 45.8% and 19.3%, respectively. Reasons for refusal were mostly non-medical (53.7%). The majority of donors were classified as high-risk (65.5%). Hearts from high-risk donors did not impact on primary graft dysfunction (14.3% vs 10%, P=0.6), neither on long-term survival (P=0.4 by log-rank test). Recipient’s age greater than 50 years (HR 6.02, CI95% 2.41 – 16.08, P<0.0001) was the only predictor of long-term mortality. Conclusions: Shortage of donors is not the main limiting factor of heart transplantation in Mid-West of Brazil. Non-medical issues represent the main reason of organ discard. Most of the donors were classified as high-risk which indicates that an expanded donor pool is a routine practice in our region, and donor scoring does not seem to influence to proceed with the transplant.
Iatrogenic aortocoronary dissection is a rare but potentially fatal complication of coronary catheterizations. Although the incidence is comparatively low, dissection often leads to procedure failure with increased risk of myocardial infarction and death. Iatrogenic aortocoronary dissection is principally caused by disruption of intima at the ostia of the right or left coronary artery during interventional procedures and appears as luminal filling defects, the persistence of contrast or intimal tear outside the coronary lumen. Dissection could propagate in the anterograde direction causing subtotal or total occlusion of the coronary lumen or extend in the retrograde direction into the sinus of Valsalva, ascending aorta, aortic arch or descending aorta resulting in hemodynamic instability. We present a case of Right Coronary Artery dissection leading to Type-A aortic dissection suffered during diagnostic coronary catheterization. This required emergency supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta with an aortic interposition tube graft and venous grafts to coronary arteries
We read with great interest the article by Khashkhusha TR et al “ACE inhibitors and COVID-19: We don’t know yet”. The authors discuss whether the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACEIs) in novel coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) patients is beneficial or harmful. ACEIs and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) both upregulate ACE2 levels. We believe that ARBs should be preferred since, unlike ARBs, ACEIs may increase angiotensin II through the chymase pathway. We would like to discuss potential harms ACEI may cause through secondary bradykinin-chymase pathways.