• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 26.05.24

Search results


November 2022
Johad Khoury MD, Itai Ghersin MD, Eyal Braun MD, Adi Elias MD, Doron Aronson MD, Zaher S. Azzam MD, Fadel Bahouth MD

Background: Current guidelines for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are based on studies that have excluded or underrepresented older patients.

Objectives: To assess the value of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HFrEF patients 80 years of age and older.

Methods: A single-center retrospective study included patients hospitalized with a first and primary diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and ejection fraction (EF) of ≤ 40%. Patients 80 years of age and older were stratified into two groups: GDMT, defined as treatment at hospital discharge with at least two drugs of the following groups: beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or mineralocorticoid antagonists; and a personalized medicine group, which included patients who were treated with up to one of these drug groups. The primary outcomes were 90-day all-cause mortality, 90-day rehospitalization, and 3-years mortality.

Results: The study included 1152 patients with HFrEF. 254 (22%) patients who were at least 80 years old. Of the group, 123 were GDMT at discharge. When GDMT group was compared to the personalized medicine group, there were no statistically significant differences in terms 90-day mortality (17% vs. 13%, P = 0.169), 90-day readmission (51 % vs. 45.6%, P = 0.27), or 3-year mortality (64.5% vs. 63.3%, P = 0.915).

Conclusions: Adherence to guidelines in the older adult population may not have the same effect as in younger patients who were studied in the randomized clinical trials. Larger prospective studies are needed to further address this issue.

February 2013
S. Hamoud, R. Mahamid, M. Halabi, J. Lessick, S. Abbadi, R. Shreter, Z. Keidar, D. Aronson, H. Hammerman and T. Hayek
 Background: Chest pain is one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Chest pain units (CPU) are being incorporated in tertiary hospitals for rapid and effective management of patients with chest pain. In Israel prior to 2010, only one chest pain unit existed in a tertiary hospital.

Objectives: To report our first year experience with a CPU located in an internal medicine department as compared to the year before establishment of the CPU.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of consecutive patients who were admitted to our internal medicine department for the investigation of chest pain for 2 different years: a year before and a year after the establishment of the CPU in the department. We focused on the patients' characteristics and the impact of the CPU regarding the investigational modalities used and the length of in-hospital stay.

Results: In the year before establishment of the CPU, 258 patients were admitted to our department with chest pain, compared to 417 patients admitted to the CPU in the first year of its operation. All patients were followed for serial electrocardiographic and cardiac enzyme testing. All CPU patients (100%) underwent investigation compared to only 171 patients (66%) in the pre-CPU year. During the year pre-CPU, 164 non-invasive tests were performed (0.64 tests per patient) compared to 506 tests (1.2 tests/patient) in the CPU population. Coronary arteriography was performed in 35 patients (14%) during the pre-CPU year, mostly as the first test performed, compared to 61 patients (15%) during the CPU year, mostly as a second test, with only 5 procedures (1.1%) being the first test performed. The length of hospitalization was significantly shorter during the CPU year, 37.8 ± 29.4 hours compared to 66.8 ± 46 hours in the pre-CPU year.

Conclusions: Establishment of a CPU in an internal medicine department significantly decreased the need for invasive coronary arteriography as the first modality for investigating patients admitted with chest pain, significantly decreased the need for invasive procedures (especially where no intervention was performed), and significantly shortened the hospitalization period. CPU is an effective facility for rapid and effective investigation of patients admitted with chest pain. 

September 2010
D. Mutlak, D. Aronson, J. Lessick, S.A. Reisner, S. Dabbah and Y. Agmon

Background: Trans-aortic pressure gradient in patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction is typically low but occasionally high.

Objectives: To examine the distribution of trans-aortic PG[1] in patients with severe AS[2] and severe LV[3] dysfunction and compare the clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and outcome of patients with high versus low PG.

Methods: Using the echocardiographic laboratory database at our institution, 72 patients with severe AS (aortic valve area ≤ 1.0 cm2) and severe LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction ≤ 30%) were identified. The characteristics and outcome of these patients were compared.

Results: PG was high (mean PG ≥ 35 mmHg) in 32 patients (44.4%) and low (< 35 mmHg) in 40 (55.6%). Aortic valve area was slightly smaller in patients with high PG (0.63 ± 0.15 vs. 0.75 ± 0.16 cm2 in patients with low PG, P = 0.003), and LV ejection fraction was slightly higher in patients with high PG (26 ± 5 vs. 22 ± 5% in patients with low PG, P = 0.005). During a median follow-up period of 9 months 14 patients (19%) underwent aortic valve replacement and 46 patients (64%) died. Aortic valve replacement was associated with lower mortality (age and gender-adjusted hazard ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.05–0.82), whereas trans-aortic PG was not (P = 0.41).

Conclusions: A large proportion of patients with severe AS have relatively high trans-aortic PG despite severe LV dysfunction, a finding partially related to more severe AS and better LV function. Trans-aortic PG is not related to outcome in these patients.






[1] PG = pressure gradient



[2] AAS = aortic stenosis



[3] LV = left ventricular


April 2007
E. Markusohn, A. Roguin, A. Sebbag, D. Aronson, R. Dragu, S. Amikam, M. Boulus, E. Grenadier, A. Kerner, E. Nikolsky, W. Markiewicz, H. Hammerman and M. Kapeliovich

Background: The decision to perform primary percutaneous coronary intervention in unconscious patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is challenging because of uncertainty regarding the prognosis of recovery of anoxic brain damage and difficulties in interpretation of ST segment deviations. In ST elevation myocardial infarction patients after OHCA[1], primary PCI[2] is generally considered the only option for reperfusion. There are few published studies and no randomized trial has yet been performed in this specific group of patients.

Objectives: To define the demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics, and the prognosis of STEMI[3] patients undergoing primary PCI after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records and used the prospectively acquired information from the Rambam Primary Angioplasty Registry (PARR) and the Rambam Intensive Cardiac Care (RICCa) databases.

Results: During the period March1998 to June 2006, 25 STEMI patients (21 men and 4 women, mean age 56 ± 11years) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated with primary PCI. The location of myocardial infarction was anterior in 13 patients (52%) and non-anterior in 12 (48%). Cardiac arrest was witnessed in 23 patients (92%), but bystander resuscitation was performed in only 2 patients (8%). Eighteen patients (72%) were unconscious on admission, and Glasgow Coma Scale > 5 was noted in 2 patients (8%). Cardiogenic shock on admission was diagnosed in 4 patients (16%). PCI procedure was successful in 22 patients (88%). In-hospital, 30 day, 6 month and 1 year survival was 76%, 76%, 76% and 72%, respectively. In-hospital, 30 day, 6 month and 1 year survival without severe neurological disability was 68%, 68%, 68% and 64%, respectively.

Conclusions: In a selected group of STEMI patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, primary PCI can be performed with a high success rate and provides reasonably good results in terms of short and longer term survival.

 







[1] OHCA = out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

[2] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

[3] STEMI = ST elevation myocardial infarction


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