• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 30.05.24

Search results


May 2024
Jonathan Eisenberger BSc, Shmuel Somer BSc, Eyal Nachum MD, Eilon Ram MD, Jacob Lavee MD, Leonid Sternik MD, Jeffrey Morgan MD

Background: Long-term support with a HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has improved outcomes of patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there is a paucity of data on the outcomes of patients who underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedure (CCSP) during HM3-LVAD implantation.

Objectives: To assess our single-center experience with patients who underwent CCSP during the implantation of an HM3-LVAD.

Methods: From December 2016 until April 2022, 131 adult patients underwent HM3-LVAD implantation. A total of 23 patients underwent CCSP during the HM3-LVAD implantation+CCSP, and 108 underwent only HM3-LVAD implantation (HM3-only).

Results: The median age was 59 ± 11 years (range 54-67), 82% (n=108) were male, and 76% (n=100) were implanted as a bridge-to-transplant. The concomitant procedures performed during the implantation included 8 aortic valve repairs/replacements, 14 tricuspid valve repairs, 4 patent foramen ovales or atrial septal defect closures, and 3 other cardiac procedures. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 113 ± 58 minutes for the HM3-only group and 155 ± 47 minutes for the HM3+CCSP group (P = 0.007). The mortality rates at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months post-implantation were 2 (9%), 5 (22%), and 6 (26%) respectively for the HM3+CCSP group, and 7 (6%), 18 (17%), and 30 (28%) for the HM3-only group (P = 0.658, 0.554, and 1.000).

Conclusions: Our experience demonstrated no significant difference in the 30-day, 6-month, and 12-month mortality rates for patients who underwent a CCSP during HM3-LVAD implantation compared to patients who did not undergo CCSP during HM3-LVAD implantation.

November 2023
Jonathan Eisenberger BSc, Shmuel Somer BSc, Eilon Ram MD, Eyal Nachum MD, Jonathan Frogal MD, Shany Levin MA, Jacob Lavee MD, Leonid Sternik MD, Jeffrey Morgan MD

Background: Unfractionated heparin is the preferred anticoagulant used during open heart surgeries, including left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. In cases in which patients are heparin-induced thrombocytopenia positive (HIT+), the accepted practice has been to substitute heparin with bivalirudin. This practice may be associated with significant bleeding and adverse outcomes.

Objectives: To review our experience with HIT+ patients who were heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis negative (HITT-) and who underwent HeartMate 3 LVAD implantation using heparin intraoperatively rather than bivalirudin.

Methods: From 2016 to 2022, 144 adult patients were implanted with HeartMate 3 LVAD at our center. Among them, 7 were detected as HIT+ but HITT- and therefore were prescribed intraoperatively with heparin and treated pre- and postoperatively with bivalirudin. We reviewed the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics as well as short-term mortality and the complication rates of these HIT+ patients.

Results: The median age of our cohort was 56 years (51–60), 71% were male (n=5), all were INTERMACS Level 1, and most were bridged to transplant (n=6, 86%). The 30-day mortality rate post-implantation was 0%. The average 24-hour chest drain postoperative output was 1502.86 ± 931.34 ml. There were no intraoperative pump thromboses, perioperative thromboses, cerebrovascular accidents, or gastrointestinal bleeding within the first 24 hours postoperative. One patient required a revision due to bleeding.

Conclusions: Intraoperative unfractionated heparin may be administered to patients who are HIT+ and HITT- while undergoing LVAD implantation. However, further investigation is required.

September 2020
Eilon Ram MD, Jacob Lavee MD, Leonid Sternik MD, Amit Segev MD and Yael Peled MD

Background: In 2006, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation amended the guidelines for the upper age limit of heart transplantation (HTx) from 55 years to 70 years and older for carefully selected patients. However, the relation of age to outcomes following of HTx has not been well studied.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of recipient age on the occurrence of rejections, vasculopathy, and mortality after HTx.

Methods: Study population comprised all consecutive 291 patients who underwent HTx between 1991–2016 and were followed at our center. Patients were categorized by age tertiles: < 46 years (mean 31.4 ± 11.7, range 16–45, n=90), 46–57 years (mean 51.4 ± 3.2, range 46–56, n=92), and ≥ 57 years (mean 61.6 ± 3.4, range 57–73, n=109).

Results: Patients aged ≥ 57 years were more often males and had more pre-HTx co-morbidities including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and history of smoking (P < 0.05) compared to the younger age groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis by age tertiles showed the rates of major rejections and vasculopathy at 15 years were similar among the three age groups. Mortality rates at 15 years were directly related to the age groups (39%, 52%, 62% log-rank, P = 0.01). However, the association between age and mortality was no longer statistically significant after multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.03).

Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing HTx, recipient age does not significantly impact the risk of major rejections, vasculopathy, and long-term mortality.

 

 

May 2020
Yael Peled MD, Eilon Ram MD, Jacob Lavee MD, and Zohar Dotan MD

Background: Heart transplantation (HT) success rate is limited by a high incidence of cancer post-HT. Data on kidney cancer following solid organ transplantation, especially HT, are limited, and only a few cases have been reported.

Objectives: To report a unique case series of detected kidney cancer following HT.

Methods: Between 1997 and 2018, 265 patients who underwent HT were enrolled and prospectively followed in the HT registry of the Sheba Medical Center.

Results: The series included 5 patients, 4 men and a woman (age range 35–50 years at HT). The patients were diagnosed with kidney tumors 6–11 years after HT (age range at diagnosis 40–72 years). Two of the men were identical twin brothers. At HT four patients received induction therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin and all received an initial immunosuppressive regimen based on cyclosporine. All male HT recipients had a history of heavy smoking. Two male patients developed allograft vasculopathy, but all had preserved heart function. The 72-year-old woman developed a kidney tumor of the native kidney 5 years after re-HT and kidney transplantation. Two patients had features of multifocal papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and eventually underwent bilateral nephrectomy, while another patient underwent left partial nephrectomy with preserved renal function.

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case series study describing kidney tumors following HT. With the improving outcomes and life expectancy of HT patients, a better understanding of the factors that determine cancer risk is of the utmost importance and may have a major impact on the non-cardiac surveillance.

April 2020
Yael Peled MD, Eilon Ram MD and Yehuda Shoenfeld MD FRCP MACR

The innovation that has taken place in medicine, combined with state-of-the-art technological developments, provides therapeutic options for patients in conditions that were previously considered incurable. This promotion at the same time presents us with new ethical challenges. In this article, we review the journey through life of an advanced heart failure patient, covering a variety of potential clinical and ethics subjects in the field of heart failure treatment. We review the ethical principles of the Hippocratic Oath against the background of the realities of practicing medicine and of the enormous advances in therapeutics.  

July 2018
Eilon Ram MD, Leonid Sternik MD, Alexander Lipey MD, Sagit Ben Zekry MD, Ronny Ben-Avi MD, Yaron Moshkovitz MD and Ehud Raanani MD

Background: Unicuspid and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) are congenital cardiac anomalies associated with valvular dysfunction and aortopathies occurring at a young age.

Objectives: To evaluate our experience with aortic valve repair (AVr) in patients with bicuspid or unicuspid aortic valves.

Methods: Eighty patients with BAV or unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) underwent AVr. Mean patient age was 42 ± 14 years and 94% were male. Surgical technique included: aortic root replacement with or without cusp repair in 43 patients (53%), replacement of the ascending aorta at the height of the sino-tubular junction with or without cusp repair in 15 patients (19%), and isolated cusp repair in 22 patients (28%).

Results: The anatomical structure of the aortic valve was bicuspid in 68 (85%) and unicuspid in 12 patients (15%). Survival rate was 100% at 5 years of follow-up. Eleven patients (13.7%) underwent reoperation, 8 of whom presented with recurrent symptomatic aortic insufficiency (AI). Late echocardiography in the remaining 69 patients revealed mild AI in 63 patients, moderate recurrent AI in 4, and severe recurrent AI in 2. Relief from recurrent severe AI or reoperations was significantly lower in patients who underwent cusp repair compared with those who did not (P = 0.05). Furthermore, the use of pericardial patch augmentation for the repair was a predictor for recurrence (P = 0.05).

Conclusions: AVr in patients with BAV or UAV is a safe procedure with low morbidity and mortality rates. The use of a pericardial patch augmentation was associated with higher repair failure.

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