Israel Medical Association Journal

Recognizing myocarditis is a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to the heterogeneity of its clinical presentation and the wide range of etiologies. There is a lack of uniformity among position papers and guidelines from various professional societies regarding the definition and diagnostic workout, including recommendations for performing endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and medical management, especially the use of immunosuppressive regimens [1-3]. Moreover, there is significant variability among medical centers in Israel in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to acute myocarditis. The purpose of this position paper is to present ways to standardize the management of acute myocarditis in Israel [4] by providing up-to-date definitions of the clinical categories of myocarditis, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic approaches that correspond to the realities of our healthcare system.

In the position statement on the definition and diagnosis of acute myocarditis on page XXX of this issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal (IMAJ), we discussed contemporary criteria for definition of acute myocarditis and inflammatory cardiomyopathy [1-6]. We also addressed current diagnostic methods including indications for endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) [7-21]. In this position statement, we discuss the management approaches during hospitalization and following hospital discharge, including specific forms of myocarditis and recommendations for returning to physical activity after myocarditis [21-36].

Background: Heart failure centers with specialized nurse-supervised management programs have been proposed to improve prognosis. The Heart Failure Center in Beit Shemesh, Israel, is located within a large primary care facility. The specialist team supervised the managememt of patients both within the frame of the center and while they were hospitalized.

Objectives: To evaluate the health services utilization by heart failure patients treated at a heart failure center and their clinical outcome.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we compared the clinical outcome of patients treated at a heart failure center to patients who received the standard care in 2013–2014. The clinical outcome included primary care visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death.

Results: The study comprised 430 heart failure patients; 82 were treated at the heart failure center and 348 under standard care. At baseline, no significant differences were seen in clinical parameters between the groups. Healthcare utilization was higher among the study group. No significant changes in healthcare utilization were found. During follow-up, patients treated in a heart failure center were more likely to get recommended heart failure medications. Mortality was significantly lower in patients treated in the heart failure center compared with those receiving standard care 3.6% vs. 24%, respectively (P = 0.001), hazard ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.06–0.62, P = 0.005.

Conclusions: Joint management of heart failure by primary clinics and a specialized community heart failure center reduced mortality. There was no decrease in healthcare utilizations among heart failure center patients, despite the reduction in mortality.

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: Left ventricular outflow gradient is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Alcohol septal ablation is the alternative to surgery in cases refractory to drug therapy. The implication of LVOG[1] measured 1 week post-ASA[2] for prediction of outcome is unknown.

Objective: To observe the pattern of LVOG course and prediction of long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcome of ASA.

Methods: Baseline clinical and echocardiographic parameters were prospectively recorded in 14 consecutive patients with a first ASA, at the time of ASA, 3 and 7 days after ASA (in-hospital) and 3 and ≥ 12 months after ASA (last follow-up).

Results: There was improvement in NYHA class, exercise parameters and LVOG in 11 of 14 patients (P < 0.005 in all). Maximal creatine kinase level was lower than 500 U/L in those without such improvement and 850 U/L or higher in successful cases. LVOG dropped from 79 ± 30 to 19 ± 6 mmHg after the ASA. LVOG was 50 ± 21 mmHg on day 3, 39 ± 26 on day 7, 32 ± 26 at 3 months and 24 ± 20 mmHg at last follow-up. LVOG identified 27% sustained procedural successes on day 3 and 73% on day 7. The overall predictive accuracy of the test for sustained success and failure was 36% on day 3 and 71% on day 7. Combination of maximal CK[3] and LVOG on day 7 showed four distinct outcome patterns: "early success" with low LVOG and high CK (73% of successful cases), "late success" with high LVOG and high CK, and "early failure" and "late failure" with both low CK and high or low LVOG, respectively
Conclusion: LVOG measurement 7 days post-ASA combined with maximal CK levels predicts late procedural outcome in the majority of patients