• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 05.05.24

Search results


December 2019
Oholi Tovia-Brodie MD, Sevan Letourneau-Shesaf MD, Aviram Hochstadt MD, Arie Steinvil MD, Raphael Rosso MD, Ariel Finkelstein MD and Yoav Michowitz MD

Background: Patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at high risk for immediate post-procedural heart block and long-term mortality when discharged without a pacemaker.

Objectives: To test whether prophylactic permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is beneficial.

Methods: Of 795 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, 90 patients had baseline RBBB. We compared characteristics and outcomes of the prophylactic PPI with post-TAVI PPI. Need for pacing was defined as  greater than 1% ventricular pacing.

Results: Forty patients with RBBB received a prophylactic PPI (group 1), and in 50 the decision was based on standard post-procedural indications (group 2). There were no significant differences in clinical baseline characteristics. One patient developed a tamponade after a PPI post-TAVI. A trend toward shorter hospitalization duration in group 1 patients was observed (P = 0.06). On long-term follow-up of 848 ± 56 days, no differences were found in overall survival (P = 0.77), the composite event-free survival of both mortality and hospitalizations (P = 0.66), or mortality and syncope (P = 0.65). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of the need for pacing included baseline PR interval increase of 10ms (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 per 10 ms increment 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02–1.44, P = 0.028), and the use of new generation valves (OR 3.92, 95%CI 1.23–12.46, P = 0.023).

Conclusions: In patients with baseline pre-TAVI RBBB, no outcome differences were found with prophylactic PPI. On multivariate analysis, predictors of the need for pacing included baseline long PR interval, and the use of newer generation valves.

August 2018
Yoav Michowitz MD, Jeremy Ben-Shoshan MD, Oholi Tovia-Brodie MD, Aharon Glick MD and Bernard Belhassen MD

Background: The incidence, characteristics, and clinical significance of catheter-induced mechanical suppression (trauma) of ventricular arrhythmias originating in the outflow tract (OT) area have not been thoroughly evaluated.

Objectives: To determine these variables among our patient cohort.

Methods: All consecutive patients with right ventricular OT (RVOT) and left ventricular OT (LVOT) arrhythmias ablated at two medical centers from 1998 to 2014 were included. Patients were observed for catheter-induced trauma during ablation procedures. Procedural characteristics, as well as response to catheter-induced trauma and long term follow-up, were recorded.

Results: During 288 ablations of OT arrhythmias in 273 patients (RVOT n=238, LVOT n=50), we identified 8 RVOT cases (3.3%) and 1 LVOT (2%) case with catheter-induced trauma. Four cases of trauma were managed by immediate radiofrequency ablation (RFA), three were ablated after arrhythmia recurrence within a few minutes, and two were ablated after > 30 minutes without arrhythmia recurrence. Patients with catheter-induced trauma had higher rates of repeat ablations compared to patients without: 3/9 (33%) vs. 12/264 (0.45%), P = 0.009. The three patients with arrhythmia recurrence were managed differently during the first ablation procedure (immediate RFA, RFA following early recurrence, and delayed RFA). During the repeat procedure of these three patients, no catheter trauma occurred in two, and in one no arrhythmia was observed.

Conclusions: Significant catheter-induced trauma occurred in 3.1% of OT arrhythmias ablations, both at the RVOT and LVOT. Arrhythmia suppression may last > 30 minutes and may interfere with procedural success. The optimal mode of management following trauma is undetermined.

February 2016
Oholi Tovia-Brodie MD, Yoav Michowitz MD, Aharon Glick MD, Raphael Rosso MD and Bernard Belhassen MD

Background: Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) arrhythmias are increasingly recognized. Data regarding the distribution of the sites of origin (SOO) of the arrhythmias are sparse.

Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics of patients with LVOT arrhythmias and the distribution of their SOO. 

Methods: All 42 consecutive patients with LVOT arrhythmias who underwent radiofrequency (RF) ablation during the period 2000–2014 were included. SOO identification was based on mapping activation, pace mapping and a 3D mapping system in eight patients. 

Results: The study group comprised 28 males (66.7%) and 14 females, the mean age was 55 ±15.4 years. Most patients (76%) were symptomatic. All suffered from high grade ventricular arrhythmias. Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 50%) was observed in 15 patients (35.7%), of whom 14 (93.3%) were males. The left coronary cusp (LCC) was the most common arrhythmia SOO (64.3%). Other locations were the right coronary cusp (RCC), the junction of the RCC-LCC commissure, aortic-mitral continuity, endocardial-LVOT, and a coronary sinus branch. Acute successful ablation was achieved in 29 patients (69%) and transient arrhythmia abolition in 40 (95.2%). There was a trend for a higher success rate using cooled tip ablation catheters as compared to standard catheters. The ablation procedure significantly improved LV function in all patients with tachycardiomyopathy. 

Conclusions: LVOT arrhythmias mostly originate from the LCC and are associated with LV dysfunction in 36% of patients. Knowledge regarding the prevalence of the anatomic origin of the LVOT arrhythmias may help achieve successful ablation. The use of cooled tip ablation catheters might have beneficial effects on the success rate of the procedure.

 

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