Intracardiac thrombi are commonly found in patients with ischemic stroke. The echocardiographic identification of thrombi is important in decision-making since it represents an indication to long-term anticoagulation, in order to reduce the risk of new stroke. Intracardiac thrombi can develop during the time course of several cardiac pathologies that favor blood stasis and/or predispose to the aggregation of thrombotic material. Examples of cardiac pathologies that favor the formation of thrombus are illustrated and discussed.

Retrograde percutaneous coronary intervention to chronic total occlusion coronary arteries can have complications due to its complexity. One of its complications is an interventricular septal hematoma which we report here.

The combination of Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome and rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) is rare in clinical practice. The management of this condition primarily depends on the clinical picture. We describe a 26-year-old male patient with no significant previous medical history and who came for a routine medical assessment before entrance to a police academy service. He was found to have rheumatic MS and WPW.

Ensuring safety from radiation in catheterization labs is critical due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. This study compares the effectiveness of Zero Gravity (ZG) and conventional Lead Apron shields in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Over six months, radiation exposure was assessed for two operators performing angiography procedures. One operator used a Lead Apron, while the other used the Zero Gravity system. Radiation was measured using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). Procedural characteristics, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were recorded. Feedback on Lead Apron use was collected using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Each operator performed 63 procedures with similar characteristics. Zero Gravity showed no significant difference in whole-body radiation exposure (De) compared to the Lead Apron (0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv). However, Zero Gravity resulted in a lower external skin dose (Ds) compared to the Lead Apron (0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv). Most cardiologists reported minimal disability from using Lead Aprons. Zero Gravity and Lead Apron provide comparable whole-body radiation protection, with Zero Gravity slightly reducing skin exposure. While ZG does not significantly alter overall radiation exposure, it may reduce ergonomic issues associated with Lead Aprons. Zero Gravity provides comparable whole-body radiation protection to Lead Aprons and reduces skin exposure. Further research is needed to address long-term impacts and enhance protective strategies in catheterization labs.