[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We describe a 76-year-old man in whom a gastric tube was used for esophageal reconstruction via the anterior mediastinum after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Stenosis of the tube resulted in fluid accumulation, which directly compressed the heart and caused angina-like chest pain associated with ST-segment depression in lead V(2-3) on the electrocardiogram (ECG). Coronary angiography revealed no stenosis. Drainage of the fluid in the gastric tube resulted in immediate relief of symptoms and normalization of ECG. Angina-like chest pain associated with ST segment changes were caused by expansion of the gastric tube and compression of the heart.
Internal Medicine 04/2005; 44(3):217-21. · 0.97 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Radial artery spasm (RAS) is a common complication of transradial approach (TRA) to percutaneous coronary angiography (CAG) and coronary intervention. Lower friction resistance between catheter and RA wall may reduce RAS upon insertion, manipulation, and withdrawal of the catheter. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of a hydrophilic-coated (HC) catheter, which has lower friction coefficient, could reduce the incidence of RAS compared with a non-hydrophilic-coated (NHC) catheter.
A total 250 patients attempted diagnostic CAG using 5-French catheters via the TRA between September 2000 and April 2002. Two hundred thirty-four (93.6%) patients who achieved successful coronary cannulation were selected for the study. NHC catheters were used in 149 patients (63.7%), and HC catheters were used in 85 patients (36.3%). We compared the incidence of RAS between NHC and HC catheters.
RAS occurred in 17 (7%) patients totally. RAS was less likely to occur in HC group (one patient, 1%) than in the NHC group (16 patients, 11%, P = 0.007).
We conclude that the use of HC catheters can reduce RAS upon insertion, manipulation, and withdrawal of the catheter compared with NHC catheters.
International Journal of Cardiology 09/2004; 96(2):255-8. · 5.51 Impact Factor