• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 19.05.24

Search results


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


August 2002
Sivan Ekstein, MD, Amir Elami, MD, Gideon Merin, MD, Mervyn S. Gotsman, MD, FACC and Chaim Lotan, MD, FACC

Background: Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease are candidates for either angioplasty and stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting. A prospective randomized study designed to compare the both methods included only a minority of the eligible patients.

Objective: To compare coronary artery bypass grafting to angioplasty plus stenting in patients with multivessel disease who declined randomization to a multicenter study (the ARTS).

Methods: During 1997-98 we prospectively followed 96 consecutive patients who were eligible according to the ARTS criteria but refused randomization. Of these patients, 50 underwent angioplasty + stenting and 46 underwent coronary bypass surgery. We compared the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events, chest pain recurrence, quality of life and procedural cost during the first 6 months.

Results: All procedures were completed successfully without mortality or cerebral events. The rate of Q-wave myocardial infarction was 2% in the AS[1] group vs. 0% in the CABG[2] group (not significant). Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (14%) in the AS group and in 21 patients (45%) in the CABG group (P < 0.01). At 6 months follow-up the incidence of major cardiac and cerebral events was similar in both groups (11% and 4% in the AS and CABG groups respectively, P=NS). Seventeen patients (36%) in the AS group required repeat revascularization compared to only 3 (7%) in the CABG group (P=0.002). Nevertheless, quality of life was better, hospitalization was shorter and the cost was lower during the first 6 months after angioplasty.

Conclusion: Angioplasty with stenting compared to coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel disease resulted in similar short-term major complications. However, 36% of patients undergoing angioplasty may need further revascularization procedures during the first 6 months.


___________________

[1]
AS = angioplasty + stenting

[2] CABG = coronary artery bypass graft

February 2002
Diab Mutlak, MD, Luis Gruberg, MD, Shimon Reisner, MD and Walter Markiewicz, MD, FACC

Background: Percutaneous transluminal septal ablation was recently introduced as an alternative to surgical treatment of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. In this procedure, alcohol is injected into a proximal septal artery to create a localized myocardial infarction.

Objectives: To characterize the immediate and mediumterm results following PTSMA.

Methods: Of 13 patients referred for PTSMA, 8 were found suitable for the procedure. Hemodynamic parameters were evaluated prior to and following the procedure, and clinical and echo-Doppler parameters at 2 weeks and 9 months later.

Results: The procedure was technically successful in all patients. Resting left ventricular outflow gradient at rest (by Doppler) fell from 82 + 37 to 15 + 8 mmHg (P<0.001) 9 months later. Late post-procedural gradient after the Valsalva maneuver was 2 + 24 mmHg. The degree of mitral regurgitation fell from 2.0 + 0 to 1.5 + 0.5 (P<0.05). New York Heart Association class for dyspnea improved from 2.8 + 0.5 to 1.8 + (P<0.01) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society class for angina from 2.0 + 1.3 to 1.3 + 1.2 (P=0.08). Complete right bundle branch block developed in six patients, temporary complete atrioventricular block in three, and persistent block requiring permanent pacing in one. No flow in the distal left anterior descending coronary artery (presumably due to spilling of alcohol) was seen in one (with development of a small antero-apical infraction) and ventricular fibrillation 2 hours post-procedure in one. None of the patients died.

Conclusion: PTSMA provided a substantial reduction in left ventricular outflow gradient associated with an improvement in symptomatology. Serious complications are not uncommon. Long-term follow-up is unknown.
 

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