BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated the relevance of left coronary artery dominance in the outcome and prognosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). However, no studies have investigated the influence of coronary vessel dominance on non obstructive CAD. The aim of this study was to establish the association of left and mixed dominance of the major epicardial arteries with the development of non obstructive CAD and evaluate potential sex-dependent differences in the coronary artery supply.MethodsA total of 484 patients underwent the same diagnostic procedures. The patients were divided into two groups based on their coronary angiogram results: the control group (242 patients with obstructive CAD; coronary artery stenosis of ≥50%) and the experimental group (242 patients with non obstructive CAD; coronary artery stenosis of <50%).ResultsSignificantly more women than men were affected by non obstructive CAD (P = 0.005). Left dominance was more frequent in the non obstructive CAD group than in the control group (P = 0.018) and was more pronounced in women than in men (P = 0.013). Among men with non obstructive CAD, a left supply was more frequent than a mixed supply (P = 0.012). Women with non obstructive CAD had a higher frequency of a left supply, whereas a mixed supply was less frequent in men than in patients with obstructive CAD (P = 0.013 and 0.018, respectively).ConclusionThese results suggest that left dominance (particularly in women) and the absence of a mixed supply in men could cause regional ischemia, thus affecting the development of non obstructive CAD. Furthermore, sex may determine the incidence of specific coronary artery supply types, therefore influencing disease development and prognosis.

SUMMARY – New data gathered from large clinical trials indicate that nonobstructive coronary artery disease (non-CAD) is a clinical entity that should not be ignored. It is estimated that 50% of female population undergoing coronarography are diagnosed with non-CAD. There is also an increase in the prevalence of non-CAD in both genders, which is probably due to gradual expanding of clinical indications for angiography in patients with angina. Furthermore, considering the increased mortality risk established recently, a prognosis of non-CAD is not benign as previously thought. However, the concept and definition of non-CAD remains elusive causing difficulties in diagnosis and treatment. One of the major shortcomings is the exclusion-based diagnosis of non-CAD. Furthermore, treatment of non-CAD still presents a great challenge and optimal therapy is yet to be determined. There are two major hypotheses explaining the pathophysiological mechanisms of non-CAD, i.e. ischemic hypothesis based on abnormal microvascular dysfunction and non-ischemic one based on altered pain perception. This review encompasses a broader spectrum of pathophysiological mechanisms of non-CAD, and proposes a new way of classification based on the major disorder involved: type I (ischemic mechanisms) and type II (non-ischemic mechanisms), depending on which mechanism predominates. Hopefully, this would provide new insights in the understanding of this disorder, thus leading to accurate and early diagnosis and successful treatment, especially considering the increased mortality risk in these patients.

The aim of the study was to assess the role of serum osteoprotegerin (OPG) as a biomarker in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) in relation to heart failure and symptomatic status. This was a case control study, which included 51 patients with AS and 39 control subjects. At the time of study enrolment, detailed medical history was obtained and all subjects underwent physical examination, chest x-ray and echocardiography. OPG levels were measured in all subjects, and serum N-terminal of the pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT pro BNP) levels were determined in patients with AS. Serum OPG levels were elevated in patients with AS compared to control subjects (p=0.001). Patients with heart failure due to AS had elevated serum OPG levels in comparison to patients without heart failure (p=0.001). A significant correlation between OPG and symptomatic status was observed in all patients with AS (p<0.001), however, it was not the case in patients without heart failure (p=0.425). There was a positive correlation between OPG and NT pro BNP concentrations with objective signs of heart failure on chest x-ray (p<0.001). Negative correlation of OPG concentrations with aortic valve area was present (p<0.040), as well as with left ventricular ejection fraction (p<0.001). Serum OPG could be a valuable biomarker in the evaluation of severity of calcified AS and serve as an additional indicator besides clinical presentation and echocardiography in the assessment of surgical treatment or aortic valve replacement.

;11(3-4):101. VII. nacionalni sastanak o kardiovaskularnim intervencijama s međunarodnim sudjelovanjem VI. sastanak intervencijskih kardioloških medicinskih sestara i tehničaraThere are conflicting evidence regarding the use of intra-aortic balon pump (IABP) in acute coronary syndrome and shock patients. 1,2 Current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines does not recommend IABP to be routinely used. It is intended to be used in patients with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with acute mechanical complications. ESC Guidelines considered meta-analyses by Sjauw el al and the major randomized clinical trial IABP SHOCK II. This research did not confirm degraded mortality 30 days after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with shock. There are several flaws to this study: the absence of long-term survival, not taking into account patients with mechanical complications of myocardial infarction, NSTEMI patients and cardiogenic shock after 12 hours. 50% of patients had blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, which rise the question of inclusion criteria. However, meta-analyses showed significant reduction in mortality in cardiogenic shock after STEMI in patients treated with thrombolysis and IABP, but without primary percutaneous coronary intervention. New randomized clinical trials are needed, so that a definite conclusion on long-term survival could be made, as well to establish if there are groups within those patients, which could benefit from the use of IABP.We present our IABP experience, in University Hospital Centre Osijek, in time period from 2014 to 2015, in acute coronary syndrome patients and cardiogenic shock, and their short term outcome and survival. This is ongoing study planned to follow long term outcome as well. Zorin

No abstract