• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 19.06.25

Search results


November 2010
I. Marai, M. Suleiman, M. Blich, T. Zeidan-Shwiri, L. Gepstien and M. Boulos

Background: For patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, implantable cardioverter defibrillators are a mainstay of therapy to prevent sudden death. However, ICD[1] shocks are painful, can result in clinical depression, and do not offer complete protection against death from arrhythmia. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in the setting of ischemic cardiomyopathy has emerged recently as a useful adjunctive therapy to ICD.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of our initial experience in ablation of scar-related VT[2].

Methods: Eleven patients (all males, mean age 71 ± 8 years) with drug-refractory ischemic VT were referred to our center for scar mapping and ablation procedures using the CARTO navigation system.

Results: Eleven clinical VTs (mean cycle length 436 ± 93 ms) were induced in all patients. An endocardial circuit, identified by activation, entrainment and/or pace mapping, was found in eight patients with stable VT. These patients were mapped and ablated during VT. Three patients had predominantly unstable VT and linear ablation lesions were performed during sinus rhythm. Acute success, defined as termination of VT and or non-inducibility during programmed electrical stimulation, was found in 9 patients (82%). During follow-up, a significant reduction in tachyarrythmia burden was observed in all patients who had successful initial ablation, except for one who had recurrence of VT 2 days after the procedure and died 2 weeks later.

Conclusions: Ablation of ischemic VT using electroanatomic scar mapping is feasible, has an acceptable success rate and should be offered for ischemic patients with recurrent uncontrolled VT.






[1] ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator



[2] VT = ventricular tachycardia


October 2010
R.O. Escarcega, J. Carlos Perez-Alva, M. Jimenez-Hernandez, C. Mendoza-Pinto, R. Sanchez Perez, R. Sanchez Porras and M. Garcia-Carrasco

Background: On-site cardiac surgery is not widely available in developing countries despite a high prevalence of coronary artery disease.

Objectives: To analyze the safety, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site cardiac surgery in a community hospital in a developing country.

Methods: Of the 174 patients who underwent PCI[1] for the first time in our center, we analyzed two groups: stable coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction. The primary endpoint was the rate of complications during the first 24 hours after PCI. We also analyzed the length of hospital stay and the rate of hospital readmission in the first week after PCI, and compared costs between the radial and femoral approaches.

Results: The study group comprised 131 patients with stable coronary disease and 43 with acute MI[2]. Among the patients with stable coronary disease 8 (6.1%) had pulse loss, 12 (9.16%) had on-site hematoma, and 3 (2.29%) had bleeding at the site of the puncture. Among the patients with acute MI, 3 (6.98) had pulse loss and 5 (11.63%) had bleeding at the site of the puncture. There were no cases of atriovenous fistula or nerve damage. In the stable coronary disease group, 130 patients (99%) were discharged on the same day (2.4 ± 2 hours). In the acute MI group, the length of stay was 6.6 ± 2.5 days with at least 24 hours in the intensive care unit. There were no hospital readmissions in the first week after the procedure. The total cost, which includes equipment related to the specific approach and recovery room stay, was significantly lower with the radial approach compared to the femoral approach (US$ 500 saving per intervention).

Conclusions: The transradial approach was safe and feasible in a community hospital in a developing country without on-site cardiac surgery backup. The radial artery approach is clearly more cost effective than the femoral approach.






[1] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention



[2] MI = myocardial infarction


Z. Feldbrin, D. Hendel, A. Lipkin, D. Zin and L. Schorr

Background: Open repair of the Achilles tendon is still the gold standard for treating rupture. This technique has the disadvantage of a long and problematic operative scar and thickly scarred Achilles tendon. To improve the surgical outcome minimally invasive techniques have been developed.

Objectives: To analyze our results of Achilles tendon repair using the Achillon® device and compare them with published studies.

Methods: We performed surgical repair of the Achilles tendon in 28 patients during a 4 year period (2004–2008): 14 patients were treated with the Achillon device, 12 with the open suture technique and 2 with the percutaneous method. Fourteen patients were available for follow-up: the tendon was repaired in 9 patients with the Achillon device, in 3 patients with open suturing and in 2 patients with the percutaneous technique. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 4 years.

Results: The average score of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale for the group treated with the Achillon device was 95.6 points (range 84–100) and for the group treated with the open method, 90 points (range 84–98). The length of the scar in patients operated with a minimally invasive technique was 3.81 cm (range 1–6 cm) as compared to 9.16 cm (range 8–10.5 cm) with the open suture.

Conclusions: This is the first review on this procedure in Israel. Excellent functional results were achieved with this technique. Our outcomes were similar to those of two other studies.
 

August 2010
H. Danenberg, A. Finkelstein, R. Kornowski, A. Segev, D. Dvir, D. Gilon, G. Keren, A. Sagie, M. Feinberg, E. Schwammenthal, S. Banai, C. Lotan and V. Guetta

Background: The prevalence of aortic stenosis increases with advancing age. Once symptoms occur the prognosis in patients with severe aortic stenosis is poor. The current and recommended treatment of choice for these patients is surgical aortic valve replacement. However, many patients, mainly the very elderly and those with major comorbidities, are considered to be at high surgical risk and are therefore denied treatment. Recently, a transcatheter alternative to surgical AVR[1] has emerged.

Objectives: To describe the first year experience and 30 day outcome of transcatheter aortic self-expandable CoreValve implantation in Israel.

Methods: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve system has been performed in Israel since September 2008. In the following year 55 patients underwent CoreValve TAVI[2] in four Israeli centers.

Results: Patients' mean age was 81.7 ± 7.1 years; there were 35 females and 20 males. The mean valve area by echocardiogram was 0.63 ± 0.16 cm2. The calculated mean logistic Euroscore was 19.3 ± 8%. Following TAVI, mean transvalvular gradient decreased from baseline levels of 51 ± 13 to 9 ± 3 mmHg. The rate of procedural success was 98%. One patient died on the first day post-procedure (1.8%) and all-cause 30 day mortality was 5.5% (3 of 55 patients). One patient had a significant post-procedural aortic regurgitation of > grade 2. Symptomatic improvement was evident in most patients, with reduction in functional capacity grade from 3.2 ± 0.6 at baseline to 1.4 ± 0.7. The most common post-procedural complication was complete heart block, which necessitated permanent pacemaker implantation in 37% of patients.

Conclusions: The Israeli first year experience of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve self-expandable system demonstrates an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at high surgical risk.






[1] AVR = aortic valve replacement



[2] TAVI = transcatheter aortic valve implantation


J. Malyszko, H. Bachorzewska-Gajewska, J. Malyszko, N. Levin-Iaina, A. Iaina and S. Dobrzycki

Background: Kidney disease and cardiovascular disease seem to be lethally synergistic and both are approaching the epidemic level. A reduced glomerular filtration rate is associated with increased mortality risk in patients with heart failure. Many patients with congestive heart failure are anemic. Anemia is very often associated with chronic kidney disease.

Objectives: To assess – in relation to New York Heart Association class – the prevalence of anemia and chronic kidney disease in patients with normal serum creatinine in a cohort of 526 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

Methods: GFR[1] was estimated using the simplified MDRD formula, the Cockcroft-Gault formula, the Jeliffe and the novel CKD-EPI formula.

Results: According to the WHO definition the prevalence of anemia in our study was 21%. We observed a progressive decline in GFR and hemoglobin concentration together with a rise in NYHA[2] class. Significant correlations were observed between eGFR[3] and systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, age, NYHA class, complications of PCI[4], including bleeding, and major adverse cardiac events.

Conclusions: The prevalence of anemia and chronic kidney disease is high in patients undergoing PCI despite normal serum creatinine, particularly in higher NYHA class. Lower eGFR and hemoglobin are associated with more complications, including bleeding after PCI and higher prevalence of major adverse cardiac events. In patients with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, GFR should be estimated since renal dysfunction and subsequent anemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.






[1] GFR = glomerular filtration rate



[2] NYHA = New York Heart Association



[3] eGFR = estimated GFR



[4] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention


April 2010
A. Hamdan, R. Kornowski, E.I. Lev, A. Sagie, S. Fuchs, D. Brosh, A. Battler and A.R Assali

Background: Myocardial blush grade is a useful marker of microvascular reperfusion that may influence left ventricular dilatation.

Objectives: To assess the impact of myocardial blush grade on LV[1] remodeling in patients undergoing successful primary  PCI³ for first anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Methods: In 26 consecutive patients MB[2] grade was evaluated immediately after primary PCI[3]. Each patient underwent transthoracic echocardiography at 24 hours and 6 months after PCI for evaluation of LV volumes. LV remodeling was defined as an increase in end-diastolic volume by ≥ 20%.

Results: The presence of myocardial reperfusion (MB 2-3) after primary PCI was associated with a significantly lower rate of remodeling than the absence of myocardial reperfusion (MB 0-1) (17.6% vs. 66.6%, P = 0.012). Accordingly, at 6 months, patients with MB 2-3 had significantly smaller LV end-diastolic volume (94 ± 21.5 ml vs. 115.2 ± 26) compared with patients with MB 0-1. In univariate analysis, only MB (0-1 versus 2-3) was associated with increased risk of LV remodeling (odds ratio 9.3, 95% confidence interval 1.45–60.21, P = 0.019).

Conclusions: Impaired microvascular reperfusion, as assessed by MB 0-1, may be associated with LV remodeling in patients with STEMI[4] treated successfully with primary PCI.

 






[1] LV = left ventricular

[2] MB = myocardial blush

[3] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

[4] STEMI = ST elevation myocardial infarction


March 2010
O. Kobo, M. Hammoud, N. Makhoul, H. Omary and U. Rosenschein

Background: Renal artery stenosis is one of the most frequent causes of secondary hypertension. Appropriate methods for screening, diagnosis and therapy are currently under debate.

Objectives: To evaluate and recommend methods for screening and diagnosing renal artery stenosis, and to assess the clinical outcomes of renal artery stenting.

Methods: A total of 450 patients undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography fulfilled the selection criteria for selective renal arteriography; those with severe (luminal narrowing ≥ 70%) renal artery stenosis underwent percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty with renal artery stenting.

Results: Of 166 patients (36.9%) with renal artery stenosis, 41 (9.1%) had severe stenosis that required renal artery stenting, and 83% had ostial renal stenosis. The primary success rate was 100% and there were no complications. During the follow-up period, two patients required a second PTRA[1]. After stent deployment, significant reductions were observed in systolic and diastolic pressures (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, respectively) and in the number of antihypertensive drugs used by the patients (P < 0.001). These reductions were sustained during follow-up. Hypertension was cured (systolic blood pressure < 130 mmHg) in 9 (21.4%) and improved in 27 (64.3%) patients. Plasma creatinine did not change significantly.

Conclusions: Selective renal angiography is an effective diagnostic tool for identifying symptomatic cases of renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Our finding of a high success rate and low complication rate supports the use of primary renal artery stenting in symptomatic patients with renal artery stenosis.






[1] PTRA = percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty


M. Sofer, G. Lidawi, G. Keren-Paz, R. Yehiely, A. Beri and H. Matzkin

Background: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is defined as PCNL[1] without postoperative nephrostomy tubes. It is reported to reduce postoperative pain, hospital stay and recovery time. To date the procedure has been reserved for selected patients.

Objectives: To assess our initial experience in extending the implementation of tubeless PCNL without preoperative patient selection.

Methods: All consecutive PCNLs performed during 2004–2008 were evaluated. Tubeless PCNL was performed when residual stones, bleeding and extravasation were excluded intraoperatively. Staghorn stones, stone burden, supracostal and multiple accesses, anatomic anomalies, solitary kidneys and operative time were not considered contraindications. We analyzed the clinical data and the choice of tubeless PCNL over time.

Results: Of 281 PCNLs performed during the study period, 200 (71%) were tubeless. The patients' average age was 53 years (range 28–82 years), the stone burden was 924 mm2 (400–3150 mm2), operative time was 99 minutes (45–210 min), complication rate was 14% and immediate stone-free rate 91%. There were 81 conversions to standard PCNL (29%) due to expected second-look (n=47, 58%), impression of bleeding (n=21, 26%), suspected hydrothorax (n=7, 9%) and extravasation (n=6, 7%). The transfusion rate was 1%. The median hospital stay was 1 day (1–15 days) and recovery time 7 days (5–20 days). The rate of implementing the tubeless procedure increased steadily along time from 46% to 83% (P = 0.0001). 

Conclusions: Tubeless PCNL can be safely and effectively performed based on intraoperative decisions, without preoperative contraindications. They are easily accommodated by experienced endourologists and provide real advantages.

 






[1] PCNL = percutaneous nephrolithotomy

 



December 2009
O. Barak, R. Elazary, L. Appelbaum, A. Rivkind and G. Almogy

Background: Current treatment options for acute calculous cholecystitis include either early cholecystectomy, or conservative treatment consisting of intravenous antibiotics and an interval cholecystectomy several weeks later. Percutaneous drainage is reserved for patients in whom conservative therapy failed or as a salvage procedure for high risk patients.

Objective: To identify clinical and radiographic factors leading to failure of conservative treatment.

Methods: We prospectively collected data on consecutive patients admitted with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Parameters were compared between patients who were successfully treated conservatively and those who required percutaneous cholecystostomy. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for failure of conservative treatment. 

Results: The study population comprised 103 patients with a median age of 60 who were treated for acute cholecystitis. Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) required PC[1]. On univariate analysis, age above 70 years, diabetes, elevated white blood cell count, tachycardia (> 100 beats/min) at admission, and a distended gallbladder (> 5 cm transverse diameter) were found to be significantly more common in the PC group (P < 0.001). WBC[2] was higher in the PC group throughout the initial 48 hours. On multivariate analysis, age above 70 (odds ratio 3.6), diabetes (OR[3] 9.4), tachycardia at admission (OR 5.6), and a distended gallbladder (OR 8.5) were predictors for cholecystostomy (P < 0.001). Age above 70 (OR 5.2) and WBC > 15,000 (OR 13.7) were predictors for failure of conservative treatment after 24 and 48 hours (P < 0.001). 

Conclusions: Age above 70, diabetes, and a distended gallbladder are predictors for failure of conservative treatment and such patients should be considered for early cholecystostomy. Persistently elevated WBC (> 15,000) suggests refractory disease and should play a central role in the clinical follow-up and decision-making process for elderly patients with acute cholecystitis.


 




[1] PC = percutaneous cholecystostomy



[2] WBC = white blood cells



[3] OR = odds ratio


April 2009
D. Dvir, A. Assali, H. Vaknin, A. Sagie, Y. Shjapira, A. Battler, E. Porat and R. Kornowski

The incidence of aortic valve stenosis is growing rapidly in the elderly. Nonetheless, many symptomatic patients are not referred for surgery usually because of high surgical risk. Unfortunately, percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty is unsatisfactory due to high recurrence rates. In 2002, Cribier and colleagues were the first to describe percutaneous aortic valve implantation, opening a new era of aortic stenosis management. In the present review we report a patient treated by this novel method, discuss and assess how it is implanated, report the findings of studies conducted to date, and suggest future directions for percutaneous treatment of aortic valve disease.
 

December 2007
I. Golan, M. Ligumsky and M. Brezis

Background: The frequency of performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in demented older people has increased in recent years. Several reports indicate flaws in the criteria for performing PEG[1] and in the decision-making process, raising concerns about the adequacy of the consent.

Objectives: To examine knowledge and attitudes of referring doctors and gastroenterologists, and to evaluate attitudes and feelings of family members concerning PEG insertion.

Methods: We conducted a survey of 72 doctors who referred 126 demented patients for PEG, as well as 126 family members and 34 gastroenterologists. Closed-ended questionnaires were designed for each study group, completed by the participants, and computer analyzed.

Results: Approximately 50% of family members expressed dissatisfaction with the decision-making process. Referring physicians reported that PEG insertion was often dictated by the need to transfer patients to a nursing home, with 50% admitting institutional pressure. Most of the referring physicians believed that PEG improved quality of life and longevity, whereas gastroenterologists did not expect an improved quality of life and thought that administrative demands should not intervene in the decision to insert PEG.

Conclusions: The decision-making process in the patient's families regarding PEG insertion for their demented relative is unsatisfactory, often takes place under pressure, and does not provide sufficient information about the procedure or its complications. Interpersonal communication between the patient's family and the medical team need to be improved and institutional demands should not play a major role in the medical decision to insert PEG. Gastroenterologists should take a more active role in the deliberations regarding PEG.






[1] PEG = percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel
ניתן להשתמש בחצי המקלדת בכדי לנווט בין כפתורי הרכיב
",e=e.removeChild(e.firstChild)):"string"==typeof o.is?e=l.createElement(a,{is:o.is}):(e=l.createElement(a),"select"===a&&(l=e,o.multiple?l.multiple=!0:o.size&&(l.size=o.size))):e=l.createElementNS(e,a),e[Ni]=t,e[Pi]=o,Pl(e,t,!1,!1),t.stateNode=e,l=Ae(a,o),a){case"iframe":case"object":case"embed":Te("load",e),u=o;break;case"video":case"audio":for(u=0;u<$a.length;u++)Te($a[u],e);u=o;break;case"source":Te("error",e),u=o;break;case"img":case"image":case"link":Te("error",e),Te("load",e),u=o;break;case"form":Te("reset",e),Te("submit",e),u=o;break;case"details":Te("toggle",e),u=o;break;case"input":A(e,o),u=M(e,o),Te("invalid",e),Ie(n,"onChange");break;case"option":u=B(e,o);break;case"select":e._wrapperState={wasMultiple:!!o.multiple},u=Uo({},o,{value:void 0}),Te("invalid",e),Ie(n,"onChange");break;case"textarea":V(e,o),u=H(e,o),Te("invalid",e),Ie(n,"onChange");break;default:u=o}Me(a,u);var s=u;for(i in s)if(s.hasOwnProperty(i)){var c=s[i];"style"===i?ze(e,c):"dangerouslySetInnerHTML"===i?(c=c?c.__html:void 0,null!=c&&Aa(e,c)):"children"===i?"string"==typeof c?("textarea"!==a||""!==c)&&X(e,c):"number"==typeof c&&X(e,""+c):"suppressContentEditableWarning"!==i&&"suppressHydrationWarning"!==i&&"autoFocus"!==i&&(ea.hasOwnProperty(i)?null!=c&&Ie(n,i):null!=c&&x(e,i,c,l))}switch(a){case"input":L(e),j(e,o,!1);break;case"textarea":L(e),$(e);break;case"option":null!=o.value&&e.setAttribute("value",""+P(o.value));break;case"select":e.multiple=!!o.multiple,n=o.value,null!=n?q(e,!!o.multiple,n,!1):null!=o.defaultValue&&q(e,!!o.multiple,o.defaultValue,!0);break;default:"function"==typeof u.onClick&&(e.onclick=Fe)}Ve(a,o)&&(t.effectTag|=4)}null!==t.ref&&(t.effectTag|=128)}return null;case 6:if(e&&null!=t.stateNode)Ll(e,t,e.memoizedProps,o);else{if("string"!=typeof o&&null===t.stateNode)throw Error(r(166));n=yn(yu.current),yn(bu.current),Jn(t)?(n=t.stateNode,o=t.memoizedProps,n[Ni]=t,n.nodeValue!==o&&(t.effectTag|=4)):(n=(9===n.nodeType?n:n.ownerDocument).createTextNode(o),n[Ni]=t,t.stateNode=n)}return null;case 13:return zt(vu),o=t.memoizedState,0!==(64&t.effectTag)?(t.expirationTime=n,t):(n=null!==o,o=!1,null===e?void 0!==t.memoizedProps.fallback&&Jn(t):(a=e.memoizedState,o=null!==a,n||null===a||(a=e.child.sibling,null!==a&&(i=t.firstEffect,null!==i?(t.firstEffect=a,a.nextEffect=i):(t.firstEffect=t.lastEffect=a,a.nextEffect=null),a.effectTag=8))),n&&!o&&0!==(2&t.mode)&&(null===e&&!0!==t.memoizedProps.unstable_avoidThisFallback||0!==(1&vu.current)?rs===Qu&&(rs=Yu):(rs!==Qu&&rs!==Yu||(rs=Gu),0!==us&&null!==es&&(To(es,ns),Co(es,us)))),(n||o)&&(t.effectTag|=4),null);case 4:return wn(),Ol(t),null;case 10:return Zt(t),null;case 17:return It(t.type)&&Ft(),null;case 19:if(zt(vu),o=t.memoizedState,null===o)return null;if(a=0!==(64&t.effectTag),i=o.rendering,null===i){if(a)mr(o,!1);else if(rs!==Qu||null!==e&&0!==(64&e.effectTag))for(i=t.child;null!==i;){if(e=_n(i),null!==e){for(t.effectTag|=64,mr(o,!1),a=e.updateQueue,null!==a&&(t.updateQueue=a,t.effectTag|=4),null===o.lastEffect&&(t.firstEffect=null),t.lastEffect=o.lastEffect,o=t.child;null!==o;)a=o,i=n,a.effectTag&=2,a.nextEffect=null,a.firstEffect=null,a.lastEffect=null,e=a.alternate,null===e?(a.childExpirationTime=0,a.expirationTime=i,a.child=null,a.memoizedProps=null,a.memoizedState=null,a.updateQueue=null,a.dependencies=null):(a.childExpirationTime=e.childExpirationTime,a.expirationTime=e.expirationTime,a.child=e.child,a.memoizedProps=e.memoizedProps,a.memoizedState=e.memoizedState,a.updateQueue=e.updateQueue,i=e.dependencies,a.dependencies=null===i?null:{expirationTime:i.expirationTime,firstContext:i.firstContext,responders:i.responders}),o=o.sibling;return Mt(vu,1&vu.current|2),t.child}i=i.sibling}}else{if(!a)if(e=_n(i),null!==e){if(t.effectTag|=64,a=!0,n=e.updateQueue,null!==n&&(t.updateQueue=n,t.effectTag|=4),mr(o,!0),null===o.tail&&"hidden"===o.tailMode&&!i.alternate)return t=t.lastEffect=o.lastEffect,null!==t&&(t.nextEffect=null),null}else 2*ru()-o.renderingStartTime>o.tailExpiration&&1t)&&vs.set(e,t)))}}function Ur(e,t){e.expirationTimee?n:e,2>=e&&t!==e?0:e}function qr(e){if(0!==e.lastExpiredTime)e.callbackExpirationTime=1073741823,e.callbackPriority=99,e.callbackNode=$t(Vr.bind(null,e));else{var t=Br(e),n=e.callbackNode;if(0===t)null!==n&&(e.callbackNode=null,e.callbackExpirationTime=0,e.callbackPriority=90);else{var r=Fr();if(1073741823===t?r=99:1===t||2===t?r=95:(r=10*(1073741821-t)-10*(1073741821-r),r=0>=r?99:250>=r?98:5250>=r?97:95),null!==n){var o=e.callbackPriority;if(e.callbackExpirationTime===t&&o>=r)return;n!==Yl&&Bl(n)}e.callbackExpirationTime=t,e.callbackPriority=r,t=1073741823===t?$t(Vr.bind(null,e)):Wt(r,Hr.bind(null,e),{timeout:10*(1073741821-t)-ru()}),e.callbackNode=t}}}function Hr(e,t){if(ks=0,t)return t=Fr(),No(e,t),qr(e),null;var n=Br(e);if(0!==n){if(t=e.callbackNode,(Ju&(Wu|$u))!==Hu)throw Error(r(327));if(lo(),e===es&&n===ns||Kr(e,n),null!==ts){var o=Ju;Ju|=Wu;for(var a=Yr();;)try{eo();break}catch(t){Xr(e,t)}if(Gt(),Ju=o,Bu.current=a,rs===Ku)throw t=os,Kr(e,n),To(e,n),qr(e),t;if(null===ts)switch(a=e.finishedWork=e.current.alternate,e.finishedExpirationTime=n,o=rs,es=null,o){case Qu:case Ku:throw Error(r(345));case Xu:No(e,2=n){e.lastPingedTime=n,Kr(e,n);break}}if(i=Br(e),0!==i&&i!==n)break;if(0!==o&&o!==n){e.lastPingedTime=o;break}e.timeoutHandle=Si(oo.bind(null,e),a);break}oo(e);break;case Gu:if(To(e,n),o=e.lastSuspendedTime,n===o&&(e.nextKnownPendingLevel=ro(a)),ss&&(a=e.lastPingedTime,0===a||a>=n)){e.lastPingedTime=n,Kr(e,n);break}if(a=Br(e),0!==a&&a!==n)break;if(0!==o&&o!==n){e.lastPingedTime=o;break}if(1073741823!==is?o=10*(1073741821-is)-ru():1073741823===as?o=0:(o=10*(1073741821-as)-5e3,a=ru(),n=10*(1073741821-n)-a,o=a-o,0>o&&(o=0),o=(120>o?120:480>o?480:1080>o?1080:1920>o?1920:3e3>o?3e3:4320>o?4320:1960*Uu(o/1960))-o,n=o?o=0:(a=0|l.busyDelayMs,i=ru()-(10*(1073741821-i)-(0|l.timeoutMs||5e3)),o=i<=a?0:a+o-i),10 component higher in the tree to provide a loading indicator or placeholder to display."+N(i))}rs!==Zu&&(rs=Xu),l=yr(l,i),f=a;do{switch(f.tag){case 3:u=l,f.effectTag|=4096,f.expirationTime=t;var w=Ar(f,u,t);ln(f,w); break e;case 1:u=l;var E=f.type,k=f.stateNode;if(0===(64&f.effectTag)&&("function"==typeof E.getDerivedStateFromError||null!==k&&"function"==typeof k.componentDidCatch&&(null===ms||!ms.has(k)))){f.effectTag|=4096,f.expirationTime=t;var _=Ir(f,u,t);ln(f,_);break e}}f=f.return}while(null!==f)}ts=no(ts)}catch(e){t=e;continue}break}}function Yr(){var e=Bu.current;return Bu.current=Cu,null===e?Cu:e}function Gr(e,t){eus&&(us=e)}function Jr(){for(;null!==ts;)ts=to(ts)}function eo(){for(;null!==ts&&!Gl();)ts=to(ts)}function to(e){var t=Fu(e.alternate,e,ns);return e.memoizedProps=e.pendingProps,null===t&&(t=no(e)),qu.current=null,t}function no(e){ts=e;do{var t=ts.alternate;if(e=ts.return,0===(2048&ts.effectTag)){if(t=br(t,ts,ns),1===ns||1!==ts.childExpirationTime){for(var n=0,r=ts.child;null!==r;){var o=r.expirationTime,a=r.childExpirationTime;o>n&&(n=o),a>n&&(n=a),r=r.sibling}ts.childExpirationTime=n}if(null!==t)return t;null!==e&&0===(2048&e.effectTag)&&(null===e.firstEffect&&(e.firstEffect=ts.firstEffect),null!==ts.lastEffect&&(null!==e.lastEffect&&(e.lastEffect.nextEffect=ts.firstEffect),e.lastEffect=ts.lastEffect),1e?t:e}function oo(e){var t=qt();return Vt(99,ao.bind(null,e,t)),null}function ao(e,t){do lo();while(null!==gs);if((Ju&(Wu|$u))!==Hu)throw Error(r(327));var n=e.finishedWork,o=e.finishedExpirationTime;if(null===n)return null;if(e.finishedWork=null,e.finishedExpirationTime=0,n===e.current)throw Error(r(177));e.callbackNode=null,e.callbackExpirationTime=0,e.callbackPriority=90,e.nextKnownPendingLevel=0;var a=ro(n);if(e.firstPendingTime=a,o<=e.lastSuspendedTime?e.firstSuspendedTime=e.lastSuspendedTime=e.nextKnownPendingLevel=0:o<=e.firstSuspendedTime&&(e.firstSuspendedTime=o-1),o<=e.lastPingedTime&&(e.lastPingedTime=0),o<=e.lastExpiredTime&&(e.lastExpiredTime=0),e===es&&(ts=es=null,ns=0),1u&&(c=u,u=l,l=c),c=Ue(w,l),f=Ue(w,u),c&&f&&(1!==k.rangeCount||k.anchorNode!==c.node||k.anchorOffset!==c.offset||k.focusNode!==f.node||k.focusOffset!==f.offset)&&(E=E.createRange(),E.setStart(c.node,c.offset),k.removeAllRanges(),l>u?(k.addRange(E),k.extend(f.node,f.offset)):(E.setEnd(f.node,f.offset),k.addRange(E)))))),E=[];for(k=w;k=k.parentNode;)1===k.nodeType&&E.push({element:k,left:k.scrollLeft,top:k.scrollTop});for("function"==typeof w.focus&&w.focus(),w=0;w=t&&e<=t}function To(e,t){var n=e.firstSuspendedTime,r=e.lastSuspendedTime;nt||0===n)&&(e.lastSuspendedTime=t),t<=e.lastPingedTime&&(e.lastPingedTime=0),t<=e.lastExpiredTime&&(e.lastExpiredTime=0)}function Co(e,t){t>e.firstPendingTime&&(e.firstPendingTime=t);var n=e.firstSuspendedTime;0!==n&&(t>=n?e.firstSuspendedTime=e.lastSuspendedTime=e.nextKnownPendingLevel=0:t>=e.lastSuspendedTime&&(e.lastSuspendedTime=t+1),t>e.nextKnownPendingLevel&&(e.nextKnownPendingLevel=t))}function No(e,t){var n=e.lastExpiredTime;(0===n||n>t)&&(e.lastExpiredTime=t)}function Po(e,t,n,o){var a=t.current,i=Fr(),l=su.suspense;i=jr(i,a,l);e:if(n){n=n._reactInternalFiber;t:{if(J(n)!==n||1!==n.tag)throw Error(r(170));var u=n;do{switch(u.tag){case 3:u=u.stateNode.context;break t;case 1:if(It(u.type)){u=u.stateNode.__reactInternalMemoizedMergedChildContext;break t}}u=u.return}while(null!==u);throw Error(r(171))}if(1===n.tag){var s=n.type;if(It(s)){n=Dt(n,s,u);break e}}n=u}else n=Al;return null===t.context?t.context=n:t.pendingContext=n,t=on(i,l),t.payload={element:e},o=void 0===o?null:o,null!==o&&(t.callback=o),an(a,t),Dr(a,i),i}function Oo(e){if(e=e.current,!e.child)return null;switch(e.child.tag){case 5:return e.child.stateNode;default:return e.child.stateNode}}function Ro(e,t){e=e.memoizedState,null!==e&&null!==e.dehydrated&&e.retryTime