Aseem Vashist

Purpose: The internal mammary arteries (IMA’s) are historically recognized to be protected against atherosclerosis. Whether chest wall-irradiation for breast cancer leads to significant IMA damage remains unclear. The utility of computed tomography (CT) and mammography to detect radiation-induced damage to the IMA’s and its branches is not known. The objective of this study is to assess the susceptibility of IMA’s to radiation-induced atherosclerosis, and the utility of CT scan and mammography in the assessment of IMA and its branches. Methods: A retrospective analysis of breast cancer patients who received chest wall-radiotherapy was performed. Patients with CT scans and/or mammograms ≥5 years post-radiotherapy were included. Baseline characteristics, coronary artery calcification (CAC), the presence of IMA damage assessed by CT scan, and IMA branch calcifications by mammography were recorded. Results: None of the 66 patients with CT scans post-radiotherapy revealed IMA atherosclerosis. There were 28 (42.4%) patients with CAC, of which four (14.3% of CAC subgroup or 6.1% of the total cohort) had calcifications on either side on mammogram (Chi-square test, p = 0.74). Out of the 222 patients with mammograms, 36 (16.2%) had IMA branch calcifications. Two hundred and ten patients received unilateral radiotherapy, and 27 (12.9%) of these patients had calcifications on the irradiated side, and 26 patients (12.4%) had calcifications on the contralateral side (OR = 1.0). Conclusion: IMA’s do not exhibit signs of radiation-induced atherosclerosis when evaluated by CT scan. In addition, there is no association between radiotherapy for breast cancer and the presence of IMA branch calcification on mammograms.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2), emerging in Wuhan, China and developing into a pandemic with rapidly emerging cardiovascular manifestations

There has been increased awareness in the understanding and recognition of spontaneous coronary artery disease. Diagnosing this condition is of paramount importance as the treatment strategy differs greatly from traditional acute coronary syndrome patient. We review here the current state of management of spontaneous coronary artery disease.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the contemporary standard of care. Such treatment is followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) comprising of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. The efficacy of this therapy has been well established but the optimal duration of DAPT remains elusive, and has thus far attracted a prodigious deal of scientific attention. The decision regarding DAPT duration can be clinically challenging in the modern era with the evolution of newer stents, more potent antiplatelet agents, and novel anticoagulant drugs in addition to an older patient population with multiple comorbidities. Major societal guidelines have emphasized comprehensive assessment of ischemic and bleeding risk, in turn recommending individualization of DAPT duration, thus encouraging “shared decision making”. The following review is aimed at critically evaluating the available evidence to help make these crucial clinical decisions regarding duration of DAPT and triple therapy.

Percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) with stenting for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome(ACS) is the contemporary standard of care. Such treatment is followed by Dual anti-platelet therapy(DAPT) comprising of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. The efficacy of this therapy has been well established but the optimal duration of DAPT remains elusive, and has thus far attracted a prodigious deal of scientific attention. Decision regarding DAPT duration can be challenging clinically in the modern era with the evolution of newer stents, more potent antiplatelet agents and novel anticoagulant drugs in addition to an older patient population with multiple comorbidities. Major societal guidelines have emphasized comprehensive assessment of ischemic and bleeding risk, in turn recommending individualization of DAPT duration, thus encouraging "shared decision making". The following review is aimed at critically evaluating the available evidence to help make these crucial clinical decisions regarding duration of DAPT and triple therapy.