• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Wed, 17.07.24

Search results


December 2019
Oholi Tovia-Brodie MD, Sevan Letourneau-Shesaf MD, Aviram Hochstadt MD, Arie Steinvil MD, Raphael Rosso MD, Ariel Finkelstein MD and Yoav Michowitz MD

Background: Patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at high risk for immediate post-procedural heart block and long-term mortality when discharged without a pacemaker.

Objectives: To test whether prophylactic permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is beneficial.

Methods: Of 795 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, 90 patients had baseline RBBB. We compared characteristics and outcomes of the prophylactic PPI with post-TAVI PPI. Need for pacing was defined as  greater than 1% ventricular pacing.

Results: Forty patients with RBBB received a prophylactic PPI (group 1), and in 50 the decision was based on standard post-procedural indications (group 2). There were no significant differences in clinical baseline characteristics. One patient developed a tamponade after a PPI post-TAVI. A trend toward shorter hospitalization duration in group 1 patients was observed (P = 0.06). On long-term follow-up of 848 ± 56 days, no differences were found in overall survival (P = 0.77), the composite event-free survival of both mortality and hospitalizations (P = 0.66), or mortality and syncope (P = 0.65). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of the need for pacing included baseline PR interval increase of 10ms (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 per 10 ms increment 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02–1.44, P = 0.028), and the use of new generation valves (OR 3.92, 95%CI 1.23–12.46, P = 0.023).

Conclusions: In patients with baseline pre-TAVI RBBB, no outcome differences were found with prophylactic PPI. On multivariate analysis, predictors of the need for pacing included baseline long PR interval, and the use of newer generation valves.

May 2018
Eran Leshem MD, Michael Rahkovich MD, Anna Mazo MD, Mahmoud Suleiman MD, Miri Blich MD, Avishag Laish-Farkash MD, Yuval Konstantino MD, Rami Fogelman MD, Boris Strasberg MD, Michael Geist MD, Israel Chetboun MD, Moshe Swissa MD, Michael Ilan MD, Aharon Glick MD, Yoav Michowitz MD, Raphael Rosso MD, Michael Glikson MD and Bernard Belhassen MD

Background: Limited information exists about detailed clinical characteristics and management of the small subset of Brugada syndrome (BrS) patients who had an arrhythmic event (AE).

Objectives: To conduct the first nationwide survey focused on BrS patients with documented AE.

Methods: Israeli electrophysiology units participated if they had treated BrS patients who had cardiac arrest (CA) (lethal/aborted; group 1) or experienced appropriate therapy for tachyarrhythmias after prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation (group 2).

Results: The cohort comprised 31 patients: 25 in group 1, 6 in group 2. Group 1: 96% male, mean CA age 38 years (range 13–84). Nine patients (36%) presented with arrhythmic storm and three had a lethal outcome; 17 (68%) had spontaneous type 1 Brugada electrocardiography (ECG). An electrophysiology study (EPS) was performed on 11 patients with inducible ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 10, which was prevented by quinidine in 9/10 patients. During follow-up (143 ± 119 months) eight patients experienced appropriate shocks, none while on quinidine. Group 2: all male, age 30–53 years; 4/6 patients had familial history of sudden death age < 50 years. Five patients had spontaneous type 1 Brugada ECG and four were asymptomatic at ICD implantation. EPS was performed in four patients with inducible VF in three. During long-term follow-up, five patients received ≥ 1 appropriate shocks, one had ATP for sustained VT (none taking quinidine). No AE recurred in patients subsequently treated with quinidine.

Conclusions: CA from BrS is apparently a rare occurrence on a national scale and no AE occurred in any patient treated with quinidine.

February 2016
Oholi Tovia-Brodie MD, Yoav Michowitz MD, Aharon Glick MD, Raphael Rosso MD and Bernard Belhassen MD

Background: Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) arrhythmias are increasingly recognized. Data regarding the distribution of the sites of origin (SOO) of the arrhythmias are sparse.

Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics of patients with LVOT arrhythmias and the distribution of their SOO. 

Methods: All 42 consecutive patients with LVOT arrhythmias who underwent radiofrequency (RF) ablation during the period 2000–2014 were included. SOO identification was based on mapping activation, pace mapping and a 3D mapping system in eight patients. 

Results: The study group comprised 28 males (66.7%) and 14 females, the mean age was 55 ±15.4 years. Most patients (76%) were symptomatic. All suffered from high grade ventricular arrhythmias. Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 50%) was observed in 15 patients (35.7%), of whom 14 (93.3%) were males. The left coronary cusp (LCC) was the most common arrhythmia SOO (64.3%). Other locations were the right coronary cusp (RCC), the junction of the RCC-LCC commissure, aortic-mitral continuity, endocardial-LVOT, and a coronary sinus branch. Acute successful ablation was achieved in 29 patients (69%) and transient arrhythmia abolition in 40 (95.2%). There was a trend for a higher success rate using cooled tip ablation catheters as compared to standard catheters. The ablation procedure significantly improved LV function in all patients with tachycardiomyopathy. 

Conclusions: LVOT arrhythmias mostly originate from the LCC and are associated with LV dysfunction in 36% of patients. Knowledge regarding the prevalence of the anatomic origin of the LVOT arrhythmias may help achieve successful ablation. The use of cooled tip ablation catheters might have beneficial effects on the success rate of the procedure.

 

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