• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 22.11.24

Search results


February 2022
Erez Marcusohn MD, Maria Postnikov MD, Ofer Kobo MD, Yaron Hellman MD, Diab Mutlak MD, Danny Epstein MD, Yoram Agmon MD, Lior Gepstein MD PHD, and Robert Zukermann MD

Background: The diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) related cardiomyopathy relies on ruling out other causes for heart failure and on recovery of left ventricular (LV) function following return to sinus rhythm (SR). The pathophysiology underlying this pathology is multifactorial and not as completely known as the factors associated with functional recovery following the restoration of SR.

Objectives: To identify clinical and echocardiographic factors associated with LV systolic function improvement following electrical cardioversion (CV) or after catheter ablation in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) related to AFIB and normal LV function at baseline.

Methods: The study included patients with preserved EF at baseline while in SR whose LVEF had reduced while in AFIB and improved LVEF following CV. We compared patients who had improved LVEF to normal baseline to those who did not.

Results: Eighty-six patients with AFIB had evidence of reduced LV systolic function and improved EF following return to SR. Fifty-five (64%) returned their EF to baseline. Patients with a history of ischemic heart disease (IHD), worse LV function, and larger LV size during AFIB were less likely to return to normal LV function. Multivariant analysis revealed that younger patients with slower ventricular response, a history of IHD, larger LV size, and more significant deterioration of LVEF during AFIB were less likely to recover their EF to baseline values.

Conclusions: Patients with worse LV function and larger left ventricle during AFIB are less likely to return their baseline LV function following the restoration of sinus rhythm.

September 2017
Basheer Karkabi MD, Ronen Jaffe MD, David A. Halon MD, Amnon Merdler MD, Nader Khader MD, Ronen Rubinshtein MD, Jacob Goldstein MD, Barak Zafrir MD, Keren Zissman MD, Nissan Ben-Dov MD, Michael Gabrielly MD, Alex Fuks MD, Avinoam Shiran MD, Salim Adawi MD, Yaron Hellman MD, Johny Shahla, Salim Halabi MD, Shai Cohen MD, Irina Bergman MD, Sameer Kassem MD PhD MPH, Chen Shapira MD and Moshe Y. Flugelman MD

Background: Outcomes of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are strongly correlated to the time interval from hospital entry to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Current guidelines recommend a door to balloon time of < 90 minutes. 

Objectives: To reduce the time from hospital admission to PPCI and to increase the proportion of patients treated within 90 minutes. 

Methods: In March 2013 the authors launched a seven-component intervention program: 


  1. Direct patient evacuation by out-of-hospital emergency medical services to the coronary intensive care unit or catheterization laboratory

  2. Education program for the emergency department staff

  3. Dissemination of information regarding the urgency of the PPCI decision

  4. Activation of the catheterization team by a single phone call

  5. Reimbursement for transportation costs to on-call staff who use their own cars

  6. Improvement in the quality of medical records

  7. Investigation of failed cases and feedback 



Results: During the 14 months prior to the intervention, initiation of catheterization occurred within 90 minutes of hospital arrival in 88/133 patients(65%); during the 18 months following the start of the intervention, the rate was 181/200 (90%) (P < 0.01). The respective mean/median times to treatment were 126/67 minutes and 52/47 minutes (P < 0.01). Intervention also resulted in shortening of the time interval from hospital entry to PPCI on nights and weekends. 

Conclusions: Following implementation of a comprehensive intervention, the time from hospital admission to PPCI of STEMI patients shortened significantly, as did the proportion of patients treated within 90 minutes of hospital arrival. 

 

July 2016
Hussein Sliman MD, Keren Zissman MD, Jacob Goldstein MD, Moshe Y. Flugelman MD and Yaron Hellman MD
March 2013
A. Shauer, I. Gotsman, A. Keren, D.R. Zwas, Y. Hellman, R. Durst and D. Admon
 Acute myocarditis is one of the most challenging diseases to diagnose and treat in cardiology. The true incidence of the disease is unknown. Viral infection is the most common etiology. Modern techniques have improved the ability to diagnose specific viral pathogens in the myocardium. Currently, parvovirus B19 and adenoviruses are most frequently identified in endomyocardial biopsies. Most patients will recover without sequelae, but a subset of patients will progress to chronic inflammatory and dilated cardiomyopathy. The pathogenesis includes direct viral myocardial damage as well as autoimmune reaction against cardiac epitopes. The clinical manifestations of acute myocarditis vary widely – from asymptomatic changes on electrocardiogram to fulminant heart failure, arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Magnetic resonance imaging is emerging as an important tool for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients, and for guidance of endomyocardial biopsy. In the setting of acute myocarditis endomyocardial biopsy is required for the evaluation of patients with a clinical scenario suggestive of giant cell myocarditis and of those who deteriorate despite supportive treatment. Treatment of acute myocarditis is still mainly supportive, except for giant cell myocarditis where immunotherapy has been shown to improve survival. Immunotherapy and specific antiviral treatment have yet to demonstrate definitive clinical efficacy in ongoing clinical trials. This review will focus on the clinical manifestations, the diagnostic approach to the patient with clinically suspected acute myocarditis, and an evidence-based treatment strategy for the acute and chronic form of the disease.

 

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