• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Tue, 05.12.23

Search results

January 2014
Itai Horowitz, Carlos Cafri, Lior Zeller, Alina Vodonos, Zvi H. Perry and Sergio L. Kobal
Background: The effects of exercise training on cardiac structure and function have been thoroughly investigated in athletes from sport-developed nations; few data are available on sportsmen from sport-developing countries.

Objectives: To assess the incidence and magnitude of the "athlete heart" phenomenon in an elite group of Israeli cyclists.

Methods: An echocardiography study was performed in 56 cyclists (49 males, mean age 38 ± 10 years, weekly average training 13.1 ± 5.9 hours); 96 sedentary subjects served as a control group.

Results: There were significant differences in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) between cyclists and the control group (48 ± 4.7 mm vs. 45 ± 4.1 mm respectively, P < 0.001), as well as in inter-ventricular septum (IVS) thickness (9.9 ± 1.2 vs. 8.9 ± 1.2 mm, P < 0.001) and LV mass index (LVMI) (79 ± 16 vs. 68 ± 13 g/m2, P < 0.001). In 5% of the cyclists LVEDD exceeded the upper normal limit of 56 mm. In 7% of the cyclists IVS thickness exceeded the upper normal limit of 11 mm. LV hypertrophy defined as LVMI 134 g/m2 was absent in the entire cyclist group.

Conclusions: Endurance sport activity in well-trained Israeli sportsmen results in a modest increment in LV dimensions and LV mass. LV dilatation and wall thickness above values compatible with primary cardiac disease are rare. These results highlight that in Israeli athletes any abnormal echocardiographic value must be thoroughly investigated and not simply assumed to be a consequence of sport activities.

November 2013
I. Strauss, T. Jonas-Kimchi, Z. Lidar MD, D. Buchbut, N. Shtraus, B. W. Corn and A. A. Kanner, T. Wolak, E. Aliev, B. Rogachev, Y. Baumfeld, C. Cafri,, M. Abu-Shakra and Victor Novack.
 Background: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the major causes of new-onset renal failure in hospitalized patients. Although renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blocking agents are widely used among patients requiring contrast studies, data on the effect of these agents on the development of CIN are sparse and inconsistent.  

Objectives: To evaluate in a randomized control trial whether uninterrupted administration of angiotensin II (AngII) blockade medications influence estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography.

Methods: Patients receiving treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARB) were recruited consecutively. The enrolled subjects were randomized into three groups at a 1:1:1 ratio: group A (ACE/ARB stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure and restarted immediately after the procedure), group B (ACE/ARB stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure and restarted 24 hours after the procedure), and group C (ACE/ARB continued throughout the study period). Plasma creatinine was measured and eGFR was calculated according to the Cockroft-Gault equation before and 48 hours after the coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a change in eGFR at 48 hours.

Results: Groups A, B and C comprised 30, 31 and 33 patients respectively. The mean age of the study population was 65 ± 12 years and 67% were males. Fifty percent of the subjects had diabetes mellitus. The primary endpoint analysis showed that at 48 hours after the procedure there was no difference in ΔeGFR between groups A and C (4.25 ± 12.19 vs. 4.65 ± 11.76, P = 0.90) and groups B and C (3.72 ± 17.42 vs. 4.65 ± 11.76, P = 0.82). In post-hoc analysis the patients were clustered according to the following groups: medical alternation (group A and B) versus control (group C) and to baseline eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min vs. eGFR < 60 ml/min. In patients with baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min the ΔeGFR (baseline eGFR-eGFR 48 hours post-angiography) was significantly different between the intervention vs. control group (median 5.61 vs. median -2.19, P = 0.03 respectively). While in patients with baseline eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min there was no significant difference in ΔeGFR between the intervention and control groups.

Conclusions: ACE-I and ARB can safely be used before and after coronary angiography in patients with eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min. 

January 2007
R. Ilia, D. Zahger, C. Cafri, A. Abu Ful, J. Marc Weinstein, S. Yaroslavtsev, H. Gilutz, G. Amit

Background: The significance of arrhythmia occurring after successful recanalization of an occluded artery during treatment following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is controversial.

Objectives: To study the association of reperfusion arrhythmia with short and long-term survival.

Methods: We used a prospective registry of consecutive STEMI[1] patients undergoing PPCI[2]. Patients with an impaired epicardial flow (TIMI flow grade < 3) at the end of the procedure were excluded.

Results: Of the 688 patients in the study group, 22% were women. Mean (± SD) age of the cohort was 61 (± 14) years and frequent co-morbidities included diabetes mellitus (25%), dyslipidemia (55%), hypertension (43%) and smoking (41%). RA[3] was recorded in 200 patients (29%). Patients with RA had lower rates of diabetes (16% vs. 30%, P < 0.01) and hypertension (48% vs. 62%, P < 0.01), and a shorter median pain-to-balloon time (201 vs. 234 minutes, P < 0.01) than patients without RA. Thirty day mortality was 3.7% and 8.3% for patients with and without RA, respectively (P = 0.04). After controlling for age, gender and pain-to-balloon time the hazard ratio for mortality for patients with RA during a median follow-up period of 466 days was 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.23–0.92).

Conclusions: The occurrence of RA immediately following PPCI for acute STEMI is associated with better clinical characteristics and identifies a subgroup with a particularly favorable prognosis.

[1] STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

[2] PPCI = primary percutaneous coronary intervention

[3] RA = reperfusion arrhythmia

December 2003
A. Wolak, H. Gilutz, G. Amit, C. Cafri, R. Ilia and D. Zahger

Background: Reperfusion practices have changed markedly over the last few years with the introduction of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. This technique has gained growing popularity in Israel, but little published data are available regarding the delays to primary PCI[1] in real life in this country.

Objectives: To examine temporal trends in time to reperfusion achieved in a large tertiary center over 6 years.

Results: Between 1997 and 2002, 1,031 patients were admitted to our hospital with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Of these, 62% underwent thrombolysis and 38% primary PCI. The proportion of patients referred for primary PCI increased steadily, from 14% in 1997 to 68% in 2002. Door to treatment time among patients referred for thrombolysis or primary PCI was 54 ± 42 and 117 ± 77 minutes, respectively (P < 0.00001). The door to needle time in patients given thrombolysis remained virtually unchanged during the study period at around 54 minutes. In contrast, the door to balloon time has progressively and substantially decreased, from 175 ± 164 minutes in 1997 to 96 ± 52 minutes in 2002.

Conclusions: There is a steady increase in the proportion of patients referred for primary PCI than for thrombolysis. The door to needle delay in patients given thrombolysis substantially exceeds the recommended time. The door to balloon time has declined considerably but still slightly exceeds the recommended time. Given the inherent delay between initiation of lysis and arterial recanalization, it appears from our experience that PCI does not substantially delay arterial reperfusion as compared to thrombolysis. Efforts should continue to minimize delays to reperfusion therapy.

[1] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

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