Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The role of autoimmune factors in the etiology of coronary artery disease (CAD) was suggested in numerous studies but has not been definitively determined.

Objectives: To assess the possible influence of antiphospholipid and antinuclear antibodies on atherosclerosis development in young patients after myocardial revascularization procedures.

Methods: The study group included 39 patients younger than 45 years with coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent myocardial revascularization. Serum levels of antiphospholipid (aPL), antinuclear (ANA) and antineutrophil cytoplasmatic (ANCA) antibodies were tested within 1 month after the procedure.

Results: All three types of aPL were significantly higher in CAD patients when compared to healthy controls: anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI), both immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgM classes (median 4.10 SGU, range 3.45–21.63 vs. 0.76, 0.12–6.01, P < 0.001, and 2.82 SGU, 1.44–11.70 vs. 1.08, 0.44–3.64, P < 0.001, respectively); anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) both IgG and IgM classes (3.13 GPL, 1.32–14.03 vs. 2.42, 0.96–18.45, P = 0.0037, and 6.94 MPL, 1.90–26.40 vs. 4.32, 1.9–28.73, P < 0.008, respectively); and lupus anticoagulant (LA) (27.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.005). ANA were elevated in one patient and ANCA in 23 (60%). The levels of aPL did not correlate with the presence of a clot in a coronary vessel detected during angiography or with exacerbation of coronary artery atherosclerosis.

Conclusions: In young patients with CAD who underwent myocardial revascularization the levels of aPL were significantly higher than in young healthy subjects. Thus, besides the classic risk factors for CAD, autoimmunity may play an important role in atherosclerotic plaque formation and progression.

Background: Device replacement or revision may constitute 25% of pacemaker procedures. In patients needing pacemaker system replacement the usual approach is from the ipsilateral side of the previous system. In cases where the contralateral side is used the previous pulse generator is removed.

Objective: To test the feasibility of implanting a new system in the contralateral side without the removal of the old system.

Methods: We present 10 patients, age range 30–88 (median 73), with clinical indication of pacemaker replacement where the contralateral side was used. In eight patients the replacement was lead-related, and in the remaining two was due to other clinical indications. In all cases the ipsilateral approach was felt to be contraindicated because of local vein and/or pocket complications. Following the new pacemaker implantation the old system was reprogrammed at the lowest rate, lowest output and highest sensitivity.

Results: All patients underwent uneventful implantation. Post-surgery monitoring and Holter recordings failed to show any interference of the old system.

Conclusions: In clinically indicated cases it is feasible to implant a new device in the contralateral side without removing the old pulse generator, thereby avoiding an additional surgical procedure and reducing periprocedural complications.