p. 1−2
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2363−2378
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2379−2390
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
0.05 respectively). Non-significant difference as regards post-operative Central corneal thickness (CCT) (p > 0.05). Non-significant increase in post-operative CCT measurements in visco-implantation group (p > 0.05). Non-significant difference in post-operative IOP measurements in visco-implantation group (p > 0.05). Non-significant decrease in post-operative IOP and CCT measurements in hydro-implantation group (p > 0.05). Non-significant decrease in post-operative IOP in hydro-implantation group; compared to visco-implantation group; during the serial 1st and 2nd measurements. Non-significant increase in post-operative CCT in Visco-implantation group; compared to hydro-implantation group; during the serial 1st and 2nd measurements.
Conclusion: The hydro-implantation had similar clinical outcome to visco-implantation with advantage of reduced surgical time and cost, and no ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVD) induced intraocular pressure elevation postoperatively.]]>
p. 2391−2400
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2401−2412
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2413−2422
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2423−2432
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2433−2442
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2443−2458
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2459−2472
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2473−2484
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2485−2498
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2499−2510
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2511−2520
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2521−2530
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2531−2542
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2543−2554
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2555−2564
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2565−2574
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2575−2586
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2587−2598
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2599−2608
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2609−2618
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2619−2628
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2629−2642
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2643−2654
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
126°) showed to be significantly associated with a shorter duration of labor.
Conclusion: Fetuses with smaller occipito-spine angle (<126°) were at increased risk for operative delivery.]]>
p. 2655−2666
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2667−2678
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2679−2690
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2691−2702
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2703−2714
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2715−2724
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2725−2732
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2733−2742
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2743−2758
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2759−2768
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2769−2782
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2783−2798
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
70 % stenosis).The study was conducted at the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and its Out-patient Clinic, Al-Hussein University Hospital during the period from September 2019 to March 2021.
∆RST index was formed from algebraic summation of RWA difference between (rest and immediate recovery) plus ST segment depression in mile meters.
Results: ∆RST index was more useful in detection of coronary artery disease with higher sensitivity and specify among chronic ischemic patients than RWA difference or ST segment depression alone. When cutoff ≥ -1.65 cardiac ischemia could be predicted with a sensitivity rate of 98.93%, a specificity rate of 96.00%, a positive predictive value of 96.3 %, and a negative predictive value of 98%. RWA at a cut-off point of -1.2 was sensitive 95.02% and specific 94.0 % , a positive predictive value of 95.7%, and a negative predictive value of 96.6%. ST segment depression at a cut-off point of ≥ 0.45 was sensitive 77.1% and specific 80%, a positive predictive value of 78.4%, and a negative predictive value of 60.3%.
Conclusion: ∆RST index was more useful in detection of coronary artery disease with higher sensitivity and specify among chronic ischemic patients than RWA difference or ST segment depression alone.]]>
p. 2799−2810
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2811−2828
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2829−2844
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
50%) affecting RV branch or right coronary artery proximal to RV branch were excluded. Echocardiography was performed during the hospital stay to assess the LV and RV systolic and diastolic functions with special focus on tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, mid RV end-diastolic dimension, right atrial area, RV fractional area change, and tissue Doppler-derived myocardial performance index.
Results: RV dysfunction, according to our definition in the first anterior MI, occurred in (55%) of the study population. Independent predictors for abnormal RV function were left circumflex artery mid or proximal affection, eventful procedure, occurrence of no reflow, glucose level, LV end-systolic dimension, LV end-diastolic dimension, and LV ejection fraction.
Conclusion: RV dysfunction is detected in anterior myocardial infarction after successful revascularization. Several echocardiographic parameters may be possible measures for RV dysfunction including RVFAC, TAPSI, MPI and S’.]]>
p. 2845−2856
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
50%). SLE patients met the 2012 ACR revised criteria for SLE, were enrolled in this study. Age and sex matched apparently healthy forty subjects were included in this study as controls. Both of patients and control groups were selected from the attendants of Rheumatology Department and Cardiology Department of Al-Azhar University hospitals.
Results: No statistically significant difference between patients and control groups as regarding age, gender, body surface area (BSA), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and Diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The Left atrial volume index (LAVI) was significantly larger in the SLE patients group than that in control group. Diastolic function was normal in 31.66%, impaired relaxation in 26.7%, pseudo normal in 38.33% and restrictive in 3.34%. Global strain, derived as an average of all segments, was 25.80±6.33 in SLE group vs. 33.12±8.71 in control group. Septal, lateral and apical longitudinal strains reduced in SLE patients with significantly differences between both groups.LA SRa increased in SLE group compared with that in control group (1.97±0.47 vs 1.57±0.60). There were significant differences in LAVI, SRs, SRe and SRa among normal and abnormal diastolic function in patients of the SLE group. The correlation between LVDD and left atrial SRs, SRe and, SRa showed that there were significant correlations with SRs, SRe but not significant with SRa.
Conclusion: LA function impaired in SLE patients. Left atrial remodeling and impaired LA mechanical functions can be detected accurately with speckle tracking echocardiography. Assessment of LA strain represents a simple, accurate and reproducible technique to evaluate LA function.]]>
p. 2857−2870
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2871−2878
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2879−2886
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2887−2900
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2901−2914
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2915−2926
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2927−2936
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2937−2950
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
0.9.
Results: As regard description of demographic data, the mean age of all studied patients was 45.3 ± 8.8 years with minimum age of 24 years and maximum age of 62 years. There were 43 males (53.8%) and 37 females (46.3%). Thirty-five patients (43.7%) were diabetic, and 48 patients (60%) were hypertensive. According to laboratory profile, the mean of WBCs, Hb, platelets, serum calcium, PO4, and iPTH were 6.5 x10³/ul, 10.4 g/dl, 228.2 x10³/ul, 8.3 mg/dl, 9.4 mg/dl and 477.2 ug/ml respectively. Regarding lipid profile, the mean of total cholesterol, HDL and triglyceride were 214.7 mg/dL, 41.9 mg/dL,and 172.2 mg/dL, respectively. Regarding to iron profile, the mean of iron serum, ferritin and TIBC were 62.7 mg/dl, 603.3 ng/ml and 236.7 mg/dl, respectively. According to ABI, there were 22 patients (27.5%) ≤ 0.9, while there were 58 patients (72.5%) > 0.9. The prevalence of peripheral arterial disease among HD patients was 27.5%.
Conclusions: High prevalence of peripheral arterial disease in CKD patients on hemodialysis and Ankle –brachial index was clearly more sensitive than physical examination in detecting of peripheral arterial disease in CKD patients on hemodialysis.]]>
p. 2951−2958
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2959−2970
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2971−2982
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2983−2994
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 2995−3006
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3007−3018
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3019−3038
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3039−3050
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3051−3096
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3097−3112
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3113−3122
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3123−3136
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3137−3144
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3145−3162
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3163−3180
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3181−3192
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3193−3202
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4
p. 3203−3214
1110-0400
Vol.50/No.4