• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 19.07.24

Search results


August 2004
O. R. Brook, D. Litmanovich, D. Fischer, S.H. Israelit and A. Engel
July 2004
L. Lowenstein, I. Solt, D. Fischer and A. Drugan
April 2004
D. Weisman, M. Motro, E. Schwammenthal, E.Z. Fisman, A. Tenenbaum, D. Tanne and Y. Adler
G.M. Gurman, N. Weksler, M. Klein, D. Weksler, M. Klimek and J. Klein
March 2004
E. Raanani, A. Keren, A. Kogan, R. Kornowski and B.A. Vidne

Background: Reports from Europe and North America indicate that significant changes have occurred in the practice of cardiac surgery in the last two decades.

Objectives: To examine the trends and case-mix in cardiac surgery in Israel and their relationship with changes in invasive cardiology.

Methods: We analysed data collected by the Ministry of Health from all cardiac centers in Israel from 1985 to 2002.

Results: Three periods were identified: the 1980s, when a relatively small number of operations were performed; 1990–1994, characterized by a dramatic rise in the number of operations; and 1994–present, characterized by a small decline and stabilization in the rate of operations. The percentage of valve procedures increased significantly from 15% of all cardiac surgeries in 1991 to 21% in 2002 (P = 0.002). In addition, the chance of a diagnostic coronary angiography being followed, in the same patient, by an interventional procedure such as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or by a coronary artery bypass graft increased dramatically from 42% in 1991 to 69% in 2002. At Rabin Medical Center, there was a constant decline in the percent of repeated CABGs[1] out of the total CABGs performed, from 6.7% in 1996 to 1.3% in 2002.

Conclusions: Despite the rise in the rate of percutaneous coronary interventions since 1991, there has been no significant decline in the rate of CABGs performed. However, there is a significant shift to more complex operations. The number of repeated CABG operations has significantly decreased and, in view of the growing use of arterial grafts and further improvements in invasive cardiology techniques, we expect this decline to continue.






[1] CABG = coronary artery bypass graft


February 2004
D. Zamir, I. Leibovitz, I. Polyschuch, T. Reitblat and G. Lugassy
December 2003
A. Wolak, H. Gilutz, G. Amit, C. Cafri, R. Ilia and D. Zahger

Background: Reperfusion practices have changed markedly over the last few years with the introduction of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. This technique has gained growing popularity in Israel, but little published data are available regarding the delays to primary PCI[1] in real life in this country.

Objectives: To examine temporal trends in time to reperfusion achieved in a large tertiary center over 6 years.

Results: Between 1997 and 2002, 1,031 patients were admitted to our hospital with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Of these, 62% underwent thrombolysis and 38% primary PCI. The proportion of patients referred for primary PCI increased steadily, from 14% in 1997 to 68% in 2002. Door to treatment time among patients referred for thrombolysis or primary PCI was 54 ± 42 and 117 ± 77 minutes, respectively (P < 0.00001). The door to needle time in patients given thrombolysis remained virtually unchanged during the study period at around 54 minutes. In contrast, the door to balloon time has progressively and substantially decreased, from 175 ± 164 minutes in 1997 to 96 ± 52 minutes in 2002.

Conclusions: There is a steady increase in the proportion of patients referred for primary PCI than for thrombolysis. The door to needle delay in patients given thrombolysis substantially exceeds the recommended time. The door to balloon time has declined considerably but still slightly exceeds the recommended time. Given the inherent delay between initiation of lysis and arterial recanalization, it appears from our experience that PCI does not substantially delay arterial reperfusion as compared to thrombolysis. Efforts should continue to minimize delays to reperfusion therapy.






[1] PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention


November 2003
J.E. Arbelle, A. Porath, E. Cohen, H. Gilutz and M. Garty, for the Israeli National Survey Group on Acute Myocardial Infarction, 2000

Background: In the emergency department the physician is often confronted with the decision of where to hospitalize a patient presenting with chest pain and a possible acute myocardial infarction – in the cardiac care unit or in the internal medicine ward.

Objective: To characterize the clinical factors involved in the triage disposition of patients hospitalized with AMI[1] in Israel to either CCUs[2] or IMWs[3] and to determine to what extent the perceived probability of ischemia influenced the disposition decision.

Methods: During a 2 month nationwide prospective survey in the 26 CCUs and 82 of the 94 IMWs in Israel, we reviewed the charts of 1,648 patients with a discharge diagnosis of AMI. The probability of ischemia at admission was determined retrospectively by the Acute Coronary Ischemia Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument. Co-morbidity was coded using the Index of Coexistent Diseases.

Results: The ACI-TIPI[4] score for patients admitted to CCUs or to IMWs was 76.2% and 57.7% respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that young patients with a high probability of ischemia and low co-morbidity or functional impairment were more likely to be hospitalized in CCUs than in IMWs.

Conclusion: In Israel, the factors that strongly influence the initial triage disposition of patients with AMI to CCUs or IMWs are age, perceived probability of ischemia, status of co-morbid conditions and functional impairment.

___________________________________



[1] AMI = acute myocardial infarction

[2] CCU = cardiac care unit

[3] IMW = internal medicine ward

[4] ACI-TIPI = Acute Coronary Ischemia Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument


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