• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 23.06.24

Search results


January 2006
S. Silberman, A. Oren, M. W. Klutstein, M. Deeb, E. Asher, O. Merin, D. Fink, D. Bitran.

Background: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with reduced survival after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Objectives: To compare long-term survival among patients undergoing coronary surgery for reduced left ventricular function and severe ischemic MR[1] in whom the valve was either repaired, replaced, or no intervention was performed.

Methods: Eighty patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and severe MR underwent coronary bypass surgery. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range 42–82), and 63 (79%) were male. Sixty-three (79%) were in preoperative NYHA functional class III-IV (mean NYHA 3.3), and 26 (32%) were operated on an urgent/emergent basis. Coronary artery bypass surgery was performed in all patients. The mitral valve was repaired in 38 and replaced in 14, and in 28 there was no intervention. The clinical profile was similar in the three groups, although patients undergoing repair were slightly younger.

Results: Operative mortality was 15% (8%, 14%, and 25% for the repair, replacement and no intervention respectively; not significant). Long-term follow up was 100% complete, for a mean of 38 months (range 2–92). Twenty-nine patients (57%) were in NYHA I-II (mean NYHA 2.3). Among the surgery survivors, late survival was improved in the repair group compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). Predictors for late mortality were non-repair of the mitral valve, residual MR, and stroke (P = 0.005).

Conclusions: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe MR undergoing coronary bypass surgery should have a mitral procedure at the time of surgery. Mitral valve repair offers a survival advantage as compared to replacement or no intervention on the valve. Patients with residual MR had the worst results.






[1] MR = mitral regurgitation


October 2003
R. Gerrah, U. Izhar, A. Elami, El Milgalter, E. Rudis and G. Merin

Background: Cardiac surgery is being performed with increasing frequency in patients aged 80 years and older.

Objectives: To examine the long and short-term results of surgery in this age group.

Methods: We retrospectively investigated 202 consecutive patients aged 80 years or older who underwent cardiac surgery between 1991 and 1999. Ninety-six operations (48%) were urgent.

Results: The study group comprised 140 men (69%) and 62 women (31%) with a mean age of 82.1 years (range 80–89). Preoperatively, 120 patients (59%) had unstable angina, 37 (18%) had left main coronary artery disease, 22 (11%) had renal failure, 17 (8.5%) had a history of stroke, and 13 (6.5%) had previous cardiac surgery. Hospital mortality for the whole group was 7.4%. Postoperative complications included: re-exploration for bleeding in 15 (7.4%), stroke in 8 (4%), sternal wound infection in 3 (1.5%), low cardiac output in 17 (8.4%), new Q wave myocardial infarction in 5 (2.5%), renal failure in 17 (8.5%), and atrial fibrillation in 71 (35%). The actuarial survival for patients discharged from the hospital was 66% at 5 years and 46% at 8 years. The type of surgical procedure was significantly associated with increased early mortality (coronary artery bypass grafting only in 2.9%, CABG[1] + valve in 16.1%, valve only in 16.7%; P = 0.01). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) for late mortality included type of surgical procedure, congestive heart failure, and postoperative low cardiac output.

Conclusions: When appropriately applied in selected octogenarians, cardiac surgery can be performed with acceptable mortality and good long-term results.






[1] CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting


September 2003
R. Gerrah, E. Rudis, A. Elami, E. Milgalter, U. Izhar and G. Merin

Background: About 40% of patients with infective endocarditis will require surgical treatment. The guidelines for such treatment were formulated by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in 1998.

Objectives: To examine our experience with surgical treatment of infective endocarditis in light of these guidelines.

Methods: Surgery was performed in 59 patients with infective endocarditis between 1990 and 1999. The patients' mean age was 48 years (range 13–80). The indications for surgery were hemodynamic instability, uncontrolled infection, and peripheral embolic events. The surgical treatment was based on elimination of infection foci and correction of the hemodynamic derangement. These objectives were met with valve replacement in the majority of patients. Whenever conservative surgery was possible, resection of vegetation and subsequent valve repair were performed and the native valve was preserved.

Results: Six patients (10%) died perioperatively from overwhelming sepsis (n=3), low cardiac output (n=2) and multiorgan failure (n=1). The mean hospital stay was 15.6 days. Of 59 patients, 47 (80%) underwent valve replacement and in 11 (19%) the surgical treatment was based on valve repair. After 1 year of follow up, there was no re-infection.

Conclusion: The new guidelines for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis allow better selection of patients and timing of surgery for this aggressive disease, which consequently decreases the mortality rate. Valve repair is feasible and is preferred whenever possible. According to the new guidelines, patients with neurologic deficit in our series would not have been operated upon, potentially decreasing the operative mortality to 7%.

August 2003
L. Gruberg, S. Milo, M. Ben Tzvi, C. Lotan, G. Merin, S. Braun, R. Mohr, D. Tzivoni, D. Bitran and R. Beyar

Background: The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study was a multicenter, randomized trial designed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in 1,205 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The most appropriate type of treatment for these patients is still a matter of considerable debate.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in the ARTS[1] trial in Israel in comparison to those worldwide, and to assess the 1 year outcome in these patients.

Methods: Between April 1997 and June 1998, a total of 1,205 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, who were considered to be equally treatable with both modalities, were randomized to either stenting (n=600) or CABG[2] (n=605) at 67 centers around the world. In Israel, 53 patients at four participating medical centers underwent randomization to either PCI[3] with stents (n=27) or CABG (n=26).

Results: Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the two groups, except for a significantly higher incidence of diabetic patients in Israel who were randomized to CABG, compared to those worldwide (35% vs. 16%, P = 0.01). Also, there were more patients with unstable angina in Israel (63 vs. 37%, P = 0.006). At 1 year follow-up, overall mortality and cerebrovascular accident rates were similar between the two groups and equivalent to results obtained around the world. There was a significantly higher incidence of myocardial infarction rates in patients randomized to stenting in Israel compared to patients worldwide (7.4 vs. 5.3%, P = 0.01) or to patients randomized to CABG in Israel (7.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.006). Similar to the overall ARTS results, there was a higher incidence of repeat revascularization procedures in patients assigned to the PCI with stenting arm (22.2 vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) compared to those randomized to CABG, respectively.

Conclusions: The results of this analysis of the Israeli ARTS population indicate that coronary stenting and bypass surgery yield similar findings with regard to mortality and stroke and are comparable to those obtained in the whole study group. Likewise, coronary stenting was associated with an increased incidence of repeat revascularization procedures as compared to CABG. However, patients in Israel randomized to stenting had a higher rate of myocardial infarctions as compared to the overall results and to patients who underwent CABG in Israel. The present analysis provides important data for the safety and efficacy of either stenting or bypass surgery in treating patients with multivessel disease in Israel.

____________________________________________________



[1] ARTS = Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study

[2] CABG = coronary artery bypass graft surgery

[3] 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

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