Israel Medical Association Journal

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) comprises a group of conditions characterized by reversible vasoconstrictions of cerebral arteries. Clinical manifestations include sudden-onset severe headaches with or without additional neurologic signs and symptoms [1].

The incidence of RCVS is 2.7 cases per million adults. It predominantly affects women, and about 9% of all RCVS cases occur during the postpartum period [2,3]. Other possible precipitating factors, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and exposure to vasoactive drugs, have also been reported in association with RCVS [2]. The exact pathophysiology of RCVS is not well understood, although hormonal influences have been suggested as possible contributing factors.

Alkalosis-induced cerebral vasoconstriction is described but not well understood. Hyperventilation is commonly used in neurologic patients to decrease intracranial pressure and cerebral blood flow. Hyperventilation causes cerebral vasoconstriction directly by hypocapnia and may indirectly affect through alkalosis.

We present a case of RCVS in a postpartum patient admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with severe metabolic alkalosis necessitating hemodialysis.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Previous studies showed that rhythm and rate control strategies are associated with similar rates of mortality and serious morbidity. Beta blockers (BB) and calcium channel blockers (CCB) are commonly used and the selection between these two medications depends on personal preference.

Objectives: To compare real-time capability of BB and CCB for the treatment of rapid AF and to estimate their efficacy in reducing hospitalization duration.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 306 patients hospitalized at Soroka Hospital during a 5-year period with new onset AF who were treated by a rate control strategy.

Results: A significant difference between the two groups regarding the time (in hours) until reaching a target heart rate below 100 beats/min was observed. BB were found to decrease the heart rate after 5 hours (range 4–14) vs. 8 hours (range 4–18) for CCB (P = 0.009). Patients diagnosed with new-onset AF exhibited shorter duration of hospitalization after therapy with BB compared to CCB (median 72 vs. 96 hours, P = 0.012) in the subgroup of patients discharged with persistent AF. There was no significant difference between CCB and BB regarding the duration of hospitalization (P = 0.4) in the total patient population.

Conclusions: BB therapy is more potent for rapid reduction of the heart rate compared to CCB and demonstrated better efficiency in shortening the duration of hospitalization in a subgroup of patients. This finding should be reevaluated in subsequent research.