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

Search results


July 2018
Yuval Cavari MD, Victor Ginzburg MD, Gabriel Szendro MD, Anatoly Leytzin MD, Evelin Novik Farkash MD and Isaac Lazar MD
October 2017
Natalia Simanovsky MD, Nurith Hiller MD, Maxim Timofeev, Eli M. Eisenshtein MD, Zeev Perles MD and Sigal Tal MD

Background: Virtual autopsies by computer tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging can be valuable in cases of unexplained infant death. The radiologist must be familiar with the normal appearance of all the segments of the thoracic aorta in normal and deceased children. A thorough review of the literature revealed no prior articles describing CT changes in the ascending aorta or the aortic arch in pediatric virtual autopsies.

Objectives: To compare the CT appearance of the thoracic aorta in deceased children and in those younger than 3 years of age.

Methods: Hospital registries were searched for cases of unexpected deaths in children younger than 3 years old, with a postmortem CT available, as well as for clinically indicated chest CT in children of the same age during a 5 year period. The ascending aorta (AA), aortic arch (arch), and the descending aorta (DA) diameters were measured. Student's t-tests and Mann–Whitney U-tests were used to compare the two groups.

Results: A total of 64 scans were reviewed: 35 postmortem and 29 performed on living patients. The differences in the diameter and the ratios of the diameter between the AA and the arch, as well as between the arch and the DA in the postmortem and living groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: On postmortem CT scans, we found focal tapering of the aortic caliber at the level of the arch between the origin of the brachiocephalic artery and left subclavian artery. This finding should not be misinterpreted as a hypoplastic aortic arch.

 

May 2017
Inbal Fuchs MD, Jonathan Taylor, Anna Malev MD and Victor Ginsburg MD
August 2016
Galit Pomeranz MD, Avishalom Pomeranz MD, Alexandra Osadchy MD, Yigal Griton MD and Ze’ev Korzets MBBS
February 2016
Amjad Shalabi MD, Ehud Raanani MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD, Rafael Kuperstein MD, Alexander Kogan MD, Alexander Lipey MD, Eyal Nachum MD and Dan Spiegelstein MD

Background: Prolonged life expectancy has increased the number of elderly high risk patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). These referred high risk patients may benefit from sutureless bioprosthesis procedures which reduce mortality and morbidity.

Objectives: To present our initial experience with sutureless aortic bioprotheses, including clinical and echocardiographic results, in elderly high risk patients referred for AVR. 

Methods: Forty patients (15 males, mean age 78 ± 7 years) with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent AVR with the 3F Enable™ or Perceval™ sutureless bioprosthesis during the period December 2012 to May 2014. Mean logistic EuroScore was 10 ± 3%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge and at follow-up.

Results: There was no in-hospital mortality. Nine patients (22%) underwent minimally invasive AVR via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy and one patient via a J-incision. Four patients underwent concomitant coronary aortic bypass graft, two needed intraoperative repositioning of the valve, one underwent valve exchange due to inappropriate sizing, three (7.5%) had a perioperative stroke with complete resolution of neurologic symptoms, and one patient (2.5%) required permanent pacemaker implantation due to complete atrioventricular block. Mean preoperative and postoperative gradients were 44 ± 14 and 13 ± 5 mmHg, respectively. At follow-up, 82% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I and II.

Conclusions: Sutureless AVR can be used safely in elderly high risk patients with relatively low morbidity and mortality. The device can be safely implanted via a minimally invasive incision. Mid-term hemodynamic results are satisfactory, demonstrating significant clinical improvement.

 

January 2016
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.

 

December 2015
Orly Goitein MD, Elio Di Segni MD, Yael Eshet MD, Victor Guetta MD, Amit Segev MD, Eyal Nahum MD, Ehud Raanani MD, Eli Konen MD and Ashraf Hamdan MD

Background: Trans-catheter valve implantation (TAVI) is a non-surgical alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Pre-procedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) allows accurate “road mapping,” aortic annulus sizing and the detection of incidental findings.

Objectives: To document the prevalence of non-valvular extra-cardiac findings on CTA prior to TAVI and the impact of these findings on the procedure.  

Methods: Ninety AS patients underwent CTA as part of pre-TAVI planning. Scans extended from the clavicles to the groin. Non-vascular non-valvular findings were documented and graded as follows: (A) significant findings causing TAVI cancellation or postponement, (B) significant findings leading to a change in the TAVI procedure approach, (C) non-significant findings not affecting the TAVI procedure. 

Results: TAVI was planned for 90 patients; their average age was 80.2 ± 7.5 years, 53% were females. Overall, non-valvular cardiac, extra-cardiac and extra-vascular significant and non-significant incidental findings were documented in 97% of scans (87/90). Significant pathologies causing TAVI cancellation or postponement (category A) were documented in 8%. Significant findings affecting the TAVI procedure (category B) were found in 16% of patients. 

Conclusions: Pre-TAVI CTA detected non-valvular extra-vascular pathologies leading to procedure cancellation/postponement or procedure modification in 8% and 16%, respectively. Comprehensive CTA evaluation that acknowledges the importance of such findings is of major importance since it might alter the TAVI procedure or even render it inappropriate. 

 

June 2015
Amnon Y. Zlotnick MD ,Tamar Gaspar MD, Ronen Rubinshtein MD, David Halon MD and Amir Elami MD
June 2015
Eitan Heldenberg MD, Igor Rabin MD, Amir Peer MD Rebekah Karplus MD, and Arie Bass MD
March 2015
Michael Shpoliansky BSc, Dan Spiegelstein MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD and Ehud Raanani MD
Aaron Ngamolane MBBS, Ludo Taboka Molobe MuDr, Kabo Mojela MBChB, Canuto Silava MD DPBR, FUSP, FCT-MRISP, Francesca Cainelli MD and Sandro Vento MD
January 2014
Daniel Silverberg, Violeta Glauber, Uri Rimon, Yakubovitch Dmitry, Emanuel- Ronny Reinitz, Basheer Sheick-Yousif, Boris Khaitovich, Jacob Schneiderman and Moshe Halak
Background: Surgery for complex aortic aneurysms (thoracoabdominal, juxtarenal and pseudoaneurysms) is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Branched and fenestrated stent grafts constitute a new technology intended as an alternative treatment for this disease.

Objectives: To describe a single-center experience with fenestrated and branched endografts for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms.

Methods: We reviewed all cases of complex aortic aneurysms treated with branched or fenestrated devices in our center. Data collected included device specifics, perioperative morbidity and mortality, re-intervention rates and mid-term results.

Results: Between 2007 and 2012 nine patients were treated with branched and fenestrated stent grafts. Mean age was 73 years. Mean aneurysm size was 63 mm. Perioperative mortality was 22% (2/9). During the follow-up, re-interventions were required in 3 patients (33%). Of 34 visceral artery branches 33 remained patent, resulting in a patency rate of 97%. Sac expansion was seen in a single patient due to a large endoleak. No late aneurysm- related deaths occurred.

Conclusions: Branched and fenestrated stent grafts are feasible and relatively safe alternatives for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms involving the visceral segment. Further research is needed to determine the long-term durability of this new technology. 

October 2013
A. Finkelstein, E.Y. Birati, Y. Abramowitz, A. Steinvil, N. Sheinberg, S. Biner, S. Bazan, Y. Ben Gal, A. Halkin, Y. Arbel, E. Ben-Assa, E. Leshem-Rubinow, G. Keren and S. Banai
 Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has recently become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in selected patients with high operative risk.

Objectives: To investigate the 30 day clinical outcome of the first 300 consecutive patients treated with transfemoral TAVI at the Tel Aviv Medical Center.

Methods: The CoreValve was used in 250 patients and the Edwards-Sapien valve in 50 patients. The mean age of the patients was 83 ± 5.3 years (range 63–98 years) and the mean valve area 0.69 ± 0.18 cm2 (range 0.3–0.9 cm2); 62% were women.

Results: The procedural success rate was 100%, and 30 day follow-up was done in all the patients. The average Euro-score for the cohort was 26 ± 13 (range 1.5–67). Total in-hospital mortality and 30 day mortality were both 2.3% (7 patients). Sixty-seven patients (22%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation after the TAVI procedure, mostly due to new onset of left bundle brunch block and prolonged PR interval or to high degree atrioventricular block. The rate of stroke was 1.7% (5 patients). Forty-one patients (13.7%) had vascular complications, of whom 9 (3%) were defined as major vascular complications (according to the VARC definition).

Conclusions: The 30 day clinical outcome in the first 300 consecutive TAVI patients in our center was favorable, with a mortality rate of 2.3% and low rates of stroke (1.7%) and major vascular complications (3%).

 

 







 VARC = Valve Academic Research Consortium


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