Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Syncope prognosis varies widely: 1 year mortality may range from 0% in the case of vasovagal events up to 30% in the presence of heart disease. 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and indication of primary prevention and compare patients presenting with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation with the indication of primary prevention and history of syncope and compared them to a control group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the number of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), and death in each group during the follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95% confidence interval) (no difference between groups). Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction (EF) (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01) and also received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), in cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2% P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9% P = 0.18) during the follow-up.

Conclusions: Syncopal patients before ICD implantation seem to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No mortality differences were observed

 

Background: Syncope is a common clinical condition spanning from benign to life-threatening diseases. There is sparse information on the outcomes of syncopal patients who received an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of SCD and compare them to patients who presented with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We compared the medical records of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD and history of syncope to those of a similar group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and mortality in each group during follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95%CI) (no difference between groups). There was no significant difference in gender or age. Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction rate (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), experienced more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), and received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2%, P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions: Patients presenting with syncope before ICD implantation seemed to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No differences in mortality were observed

 

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis. Heart failure centers with specialized nurse-supervised management programs have been proposed to improve prognosis.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with HF treated at a multidisciplinary HF center of Clalit Health Services in Jerusalem in collaboration with Hadassah University Hospital.

Methods: We evaluated clinical outcome including hospitalizations and death in all HF patients followed at the HF center for 1 year.

Results: Altogether, 324 patients were included and followed at the HF center; 58% were males with a mean age of 76 ± 11 years, and 58% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class 3-4. The overall 1 year survival rate was 91% and the 1 year hospitalization rate 29%. Comparing patients in the HF center to the whole cohort of patients with a diagnosis of HF (N=6618) in Clalit Health Services in Jerusalem demonstrated a similar 1 year survival rate: 91% vs. 89% respectively but with a significantly reduced hospitalization rate: 29% vs. 42% respectively (P < 0.01). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that treatment in the HF center was a significant predictor of reduced hospitalization after adjustment for other predictors (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.53–0.80, P < 0.0001). A subset of patients that was evaluated (N=78) showed significantly increased compliance. NYHA class improved in these patients from a mean of 3.1 ± 0.1 to 2.6 ± 0.1 after treatment (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Supervision by dedicated specialized nurses in a HF center increased compliance, improved functional capacity in HF patients, and reduced hospitalization rate. HF centers should be considered part of the standard treatment of patients with symptomatic HF.
 

Background: Femoral artery vascular complications are the most common adverse events following cardiac catheterization. Smaller diameter introducer sheaths and catheters are likely to lower the puncture site complication rate but may hinder visualization.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and angiographic quality of 4 French catheters.

Methods: The study was designed to simulate real-life operator-based experience. Diagnostic angiography was performed with either 4F or 6F diagnostic catheters; the size of the catheter used in each patient was predetermined by the day of the month. Patients undergoing 4F and 6F diagnostic angiography were ambulated after 4 and 6 hours, respectively. The following technical parameters were recorded by the operator: ease of introducer sheath insertion, ease of coronary intubation, ease of injection, coronary opacification, collateral flow demonstration, and overall assessment. Adverse events were recorded in all patients and included minor bleeding, major bleeding (necessitating blood transfusion), minor hematoma, major hematoma, pseudo-aneurysm formation and arteriovenous fistula.

Results: The study group included 177 patients, of whom 91 were in the 4F arm and 86 in the 6F arm. Demographic and procedural data were similar in both groups. Seventy-seven percent of 6F and 50% of 4F procedures were evaluated as excellent (P < 0.05). This difference was attributed to easier intubation of the coronary ostium and contrast material injection, increased opacification of the coronary arteries, and demonstration of collateral flow with 6F catheters. Complications occurred in 22% of patients treated with 6F catheters and 10% of those treated with 4F catheters (P = 0.11). Of the 50 patients who switched from 4F to 6F 12% had complications. In patients undergoing diagnostic angiography, the complication rate was 10% vs. 27% (most of them minor) in the 4F and 6F groups, respectively (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Patients catheterized with 4F have fewer complications compared with 6F diagnostic catheters even when ambulated earlier. Although 4F had a reduced quality compared to 6F angiographies, they were evaluated as satisfactory or excellent in quality 85% of the time. 4F catheters have a potential for reduced hospitalization stay and are a good option for primary catheterization in patients not anticipated to undergo coronary intervention