Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The management of aspirin therapy before an invasive procedure poses a frequent clinical dilemma due to uncertainty regarding b[AS1] leeding versus thromboembolic risks associated with continuation or withdrawal of the drug. There is no evidence-based data to refer to.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of internal medicine physicians regarding aspirin therapy prior to an invasive procedure.

Methods: A questionnaire presenting nine hypothetical cases with different combinations of bleeding and thromboembolic risk was given to physicians in an Internal Medicine Division during a personal interview. For each case the participants had to choose between withdrawal of aspirin prior to an invasive procedure, continuation of aspirin, or substitution of low molecular weight heparin for aspirin. Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the survey. For a patient with low thromboembolic risk, 77% (95% confidence interval 65.3–86.3%), 95% (87.2–98.7%) and 97% (89.6–99.5%) of physicians elected to discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high bleeding risk procedure, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 23% (95% CI[1] 13.7–34.7%), 59% (46.4–70.8%) and 74% (61.7–83.6%) would discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, and 5% (95% CI 1.3–12.8%), 23% (13.7–34.7%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) would substitute LMWH[2] for aspirin. For a patient with high thromboembolic risk, 1.6% (95% CI 0.08–7.8%), 11.5% (5.2–21.4%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) recommended discontinuing aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, respectively. In these situations, 18% (95% CI 9.9–29.2%), 53% (40.0–64.7%) and 57% (44.8–69.3%), respectively, would substitute LMWH for aspirin.

Conclusions: The results of the current investigation may help practicing physicians to decide whether to discontinue aspirin therapy prior to invasive procedures. The possible use of LMWH to replace aspirin as suggested here should be further evaluated in a controlled clinical study.

 

Objective: To study the attitude of physicians to obesity by examining discharge letters of overweight patients with ischemic heart disease.

Methods: We used the HOLEM database for this analysis. The HOLEM project was designed to study the NCEP (National Cholesterol Education Program) guideline implementation among patients with IHD[1] at hospital discharge. We documented the recording of risk factors and treatment recommendations for IHD by reviewing the discharge letters of 2994 IHD patients admitted to four central hospitals in Israel between 1998 and 2000. A follow-up visit was held 6–8 weeks after discharge, at which time the diagnosis of IHD was verified, risk factor status was checked, height and weight were measured and drug treatment was reviewed.

Results: Mean body mass index was 28.3 kg/m² and 32% were obese (BMI[2] ³ 30 kg/m²). Only 39.6% of the obese patients and 65.8% of the morbidly obese patients (BMI ³ 40 kg/m²) had "obesity" noted in their discharging letters, and weight loss recommendation was written in only 15% of the obese patients' discharge letters. Acute episodes like acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina did not influence the notation of obesity, and only BMI and the number of additional risk factors were positively correlated with the notation of this risk factor.

Conclusions: Despite the importance of obesity, weight status was not noted and weight loss was not recommended in most of the discharge letters of obese IHD patients.

Objectives: To examine whether the treatment recommendations given to ischemic heart disease patients at hospital discharge are compatible with the guidelines of the Israeli Medical Societies and the U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program for coronary artery disease prevention; and to study the effects of brief educational sessions on the adherence of physicians with the guidelines.

Methods: We included consecutive IHD[1] patients admitted to four central hospitals in Israel between 1998 and 2000. The study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, we reviewed discharge letters to document treatment recommendations given to each patient. In phase 2 we educated the practitioners by reviewing the Israeli Medical Societies and the NCEP[2] guidelines and the quality of their recommendations in phase 1, after which we reevaluated the discharge letters.

Results: The study included 2,994 patients: 627 in phase 1 and 2,367 in phase 2. Of the patients who needed cholesterol-lowering according to their low density lipoprotein levels, 37.4% were not prescribed such drugs at discharge (under-treatment group). This proportion was reduced by education to 26.6% (P < 0.001) in phase 2. Of the treated patients, 65.6% did not reach the target LDL[3] goal in phase 1 (under-dosage group) as compared to 60.2% in phase 2 (P = 0.23). In phase 2 there was an increase in the percent of patients reaching LDL levels <130 mg/day (69.3% vs. 63.8% of patients prescribed medication, P = 0.01), but the percent of patients reaching LDL levels <100 was not different in phase 2 after adjusting for age and gender (the odds ratio for reaching target LDL was 1.16, with 95% confidence interval of 0.95–1.43).

Conclusions: Physician recommendations to IHD patients discharged from hospital were suboptimal. We documented a high proportion of under-treated and under-dosage patients. Brief educational sessions have a beneficial effect on the usage of statins; however, additional effort in guideline implementations is needed.

Background: Primary pulmonary hypertension is a rare disorder, characterized by progressive pulmonary hypertension and right heart failure. It may be familial or sporadic. Mutations in bone morphogenetic protein receptor II (BMPR2), a member of the transforming growth factor-beta receptor superfamily of receptors, underlie many cases of the disorder.

Objectives: To perform molecular analysis of a patient with familial PPH[1] and provide her and her family with suitable genetic counseling.

Methods: DNA was extracted from 10 ml whole blood, and the BMPR2 gene was screened for mutations. Individual exons were amplified by polymerase chain reaction and sequenced. Mutation confirmation and molecular characterization of additional family members was performed using restriction enzyme analysis followed by appropriate genetic counseling.

Results: We identified a novel T to C missense mutation expected to result in substitution of arginine for a conserved cysteine in the ligand-binding domain of BMPR2. Screening of family members demonstrated the presence of the mutation in the father and a younger asymptomatic sister of the index patient.

Conclusions: Molecular diagnosis in PPH allows for identification of at-risk family members and raises the option of earlier diagnosis and possibly instituting earlier treatment in affected individuals. However, molecular screening of asymptomatic family members raises difficult ethical questions that can only be resolved by conducting large multicenter prospective studies in BMPR2 carriers.

Background: Low density lipoprotein apheresis is used as a complementary method for treating hypercholesterolemic patients who cannot reach target LDL[1]-cholesterol levels on conventional dietary and drug treatment. The DALI system (direct absorption of lipoproteins) is the only extracorporeal LDL-removing system compatible with whole blood.

Objective: To describe our one year experience using the DALI[2] system.

Methods: LDL apheresis was used in 13 patients due to inability to reach target LDL-C levels on conventional treatment. They included seven patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, three who had adverse reactions to statins, and three patients with ischemic heart disease who did not reach LDL-C target level on medical treatment.

Results: The average triglyceride, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein-C and LDL-C levels before and after treatment in all patients were: 170 ± 113 vs. 124 ± 91, 269 ± 74 vs. 132 ± 48, 42 ± 8 vs. 37 ± 7.9, and 196 ± 77 vs. 80 ± 52 mg/dl, respectively. Comparing the results of a subgroup of seven patients who had previously been treated with plasma exchange, it is noteworthy that while the reduction in triglyceride, total cholesterol and LDL-C are comparable, the effect on HDL[3]-C concentration was less apparent: from an average of 39.7 ± 8.7 and 23 ± 5.7 mg/dl before and after plasma exchange to an average of 43.9 ± 8.1 and 38.4 ± 7 mg/dl before and after LDL apheresis, respectively. Five patients developed treatment-related adverse events: three experienced allergic reactions manifested as shortness of breath, urticaria and facial flushing; one patient developed rhabdomyolysis, an adverse reaction that was not reported previously as a result of LDL apheresis; and one patient had myopathy with back pain. All untoward effects occurred during the first few treatment sessions.

Conclusions: LDL apheresis using the DALI system is highly efficacious for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. It is associated with a significant number of side effects occurring during the first treatment sessions. In patients not experiencing adverse effects in the early treatment period, it is well tolerated, and can provide remarkable clinical benefit even after short-term therapy.

________________