Zaher Atamna MD, Bibiana Chazan MD, Orna Nitzan MD, Raul Colodner PhD, Hila Kfir MD, Merav Strauss PhD, Naama Schwartz PhD and Arie Markel MD
Background: Recent studies show that vaccination of health care workers (HCW) might reduce influenza transmission and mortality among hospitalized patients. No studies have compared the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza in vaccinated versus unvaccinated hospital HCW.
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of influenza vaccination among hospital HCW and to examine the attitudes of this population towards influenza vaccination.
Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study between 1 January and 30 April 2014 of 1641 HCW at our medical center; 733 were vaccinated and 908 not vaccinated. A random sample of 199 subjects was obtained: 97 vaccinated and 102 non-vaccinated. Participating individuals were contacted on a weekly basis during the flu season and were asked to report any respiratory or flu symptoms and, if positive, to undergo a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for influenza.
Results: In the general HCW population, vaccination was more frequent among physicians 298/498 (58%) than among nurses (324/862 (38%) and among males than females. Flu symptoms were reported by 20 of 199 participants, 13 in the non-vaccinated group (12.7%) and 7 in the vaccinated group (7.2%). A positive PCR test for influenza A virus was present in 4 of 20 people tested (20%). All positive cases were from the non-vaccinated group (P = 0.0953).
Conclusions: Non-vaccinated HCW showed a higher, although not statistically significant, tendency for contracting laboratory-proven influenza than the vaccinated population. The main reasons for vaccination and non-vaccination were personal beliefs and habits. Education efforts are needed to improve compliance. Larger studies could further clarify this issue.
Eyal R. Nachum MD, Ehud Raanani MD, Amit Segev MD, Victor Guetta MD, Ilan Hai MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD, Paul Fefer MD, Hamdan Ashraf MD, Israel Barabash MD, Amjad Shalabi MD and Dan Spiegelstein MD
Background: The rate of mitral bioprosthesis implantation in clinical practice is increasing. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation has been described for high risk patients requiring redo valve surgery.
Objectives: To report our experience with transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral bioprosthesis.
Methods: Since 2010, 10 patients have undergone transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis in our center. Aortic valve-in-valve implantation was performed in one of them and mitral valve-in-valve implantation in nine. Mean age was 82 ± 4 years and 6 were female (67%). Mean time from original mitral valve (MV) replacement to valve-in-valve procedure was 10.5 ± 3.7 years. Follow-up was completed by all patients with a mean duration of 13 ± 12 months.
Results: Preoperatively, all patients presented with significant mitral regurgitation; two with mitral stenosis due to structural valve failure. All nine patients underwent successful transapical valve-in-valve implantation with an Edwards Sapien™ balloon expandable valve. There was no in-hospital mortality. Mean and median hospital duration was 15 ± 18 and 7 days respectively. Valve implantation was successful in all patients and there were no major complications, except for major femoral access bleeding in one patient. At last follow-up, all patients were alive and in NYHA functional class I or II. Echocardiography follow-up demonstrated that mitral regurgitation was absent or trivial in seven patients and mild in two. At follow-up, peak and mean gradients changed from 26 ± 4 and 8 ± 2 at baseline to 16.7 ± 3 and 7.3 ± 1.5, respectively.
Conclusions: Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis is feasible in selected high risk patients. Our early experience with this strategy is encouraging. Larger randomized trials with long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up are recommended.
Amir Givon MD, Natalia Vedernikova MD, David Luria MD, Ori Vatury MD, Rafael Kuperstein MD, Micha S. Feinberg MD, Michael Eldar MD, Michael Glikson MD and Eyal Nof MD
Background: Transvenous lead extraction can lead to tricuspid valve damage.
Objectives: To assess the incidence, risk factors and clinical outcome of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) following lead extraction.
Methods: We prospectively collected data on patients who underwent lead extraction at the Sheba Medical Center prior to laser use (i.e., before 2012). Echocardiography results before and following the procedure were used to confirm TR worsening, defined as an echocardiographic increase of at least one TR grade. Various clinical and echocardiographic parameters were analyzed as risk factors for TR. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was conducted to assess the clinical significance outcome of extraction-induced TR.
Results: Of 152 patients who underwent lead extraction without laser before 2012, 86 (56%) (192 electrodes) had echocardiography results before and within one week following the procedure. New or worsening TR was discovered in 13 patients (15%). Use of mechanical tools and younger age at extraction were found on multivariate analysis to be factors for TR development (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03 respectively). Average follow-up was 22.25 ± 21.34 months (range 8–93). There were no significant differences in the incidence of right-sided heart failure (50% vs. 23%, P = 0.192) or hospitalizations due to heart failure exacerbations (37.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.110). No patient required tricuspid valve repair or replacement. Death rates were similar in the TR and non-TR groups (20% vs. 33%).
Conclusions: TR following lead extraction is not uncommon but does not seem to affect survival or outcomes such as need for valve surgery. Its long-term effects remain to be determined.
Tamara Kushnir MA, Ofer N. Gofrit MD, Ruth Elkayam MA, Shani Shimon-Paluch MD, Yaacov R. Lawrence MBBS MRCP, Ilana Weiss MA and Zvi Symon MD
Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) added to radiation therapy (RT) in intermediate to high risk prostate cancer negatively impacts quality of life.
Objectives: To compare health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients receiving combined RT with and without ADT
Methods: The study population comprised patients treated with definitive RT for prostate cancer who completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 form between 3 and 24 months after completing RT. Covariance and a stepwise backward logistic regression model was used.
Results: Data were available for 143 patients who received RT+ADT and 70 who received RT alone. The sexual function and hormonal vitality scores of patients receiving RT+ADT were significantly lower than those receiving RT alone (P < 0.0001). Patients with only compulsory school education had significantly lower sexual function scores than patients with university level education (P ≤ 0.005). Patients with depression had significantly lower hormonal vitality scores than those without depression (P ≤ 0.0001).
Conclusions: The addition of ADT to RT is responsible for decrements in quality of life in the sexual and hormonal vitality domains, which is further compounded by lack of education and depression. This underlines the need to improve education, identify and treat depression, and develop strategies to improve the quality of life of patients receiving combination therapy.