Zaza Iakobishvili

Dr. Zaza Iakobishvili

Clalit Health Fund, Assuta Ashdod Department of Cardiology, Ben Gurion University in Negev, Israel

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2016 in Journal of Cardiac Failure
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DLDaniel J. Lenihan
Daniel J. Lenihan
GHGregory Hartlage
Gregory Hartlage
JDJeanne DeCara
Jeanne DeCara
ABAnne Blaes
Anne Blaes
JFJ. Emanuel Finet
J. Emanuel Finet
JCJoseph Carver
Joseph Carver

17 January 2023 in JACC: Cardiooncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
HKHarry Klimis
Harry Klimis
JPJehonathan H. Pinthus
Jehonathan H. Pinthus
NANazanin Aghel
Nazanin Aghel
EDEmmanuelle Duceppe
Emmanuelle Duceppe
VFVincent Fradet
Vincent Fradet
DLDarryl P. Leong
Darryl P. Leong
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence is higher in men with prostate cancer (PC) than without. We describe the rate and correlates of poor cardiovascular risk factor control among men with PC. We prospectively characterized 2,811 consecutive men (mean age 68 ± 8 years) with PC from 24 sites in Canada, Israel, Brazil, and Australia. We defined poor overall risk factor control as ≥3 of the following: suboptimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (>2 mmol/L if Framingham Risk Score [FRS] ≥15 and ≥3.5 mmol/L if FRS <15), current smoker, physical inactivity (0.9. Among participants (9% with metastatic PC and 23% with pre-existing CVD), 99% had ≥1 uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factor, and 51% had poor overall risk factor control. Not taking a statin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.55; 95% CI: 2.00-3.26), physical frailty (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.51-3.71), need for BP drugs (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.84-3.03), and age (OR per 10-year increase: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.14-1.59) were associated with poor overall risk factor control after adjustment for education, PC characteristics, androgen deprivation therapy, depression, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group functional status. Poor control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors is common in men with PC, highlighting the large gap in care and the need for improved interventions to optimize cardiovascular risk management in this population.

18 April 2014 in International Journal of Cardiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MNM.S. Nieminen
M.S. Nieminen
JAJ. Altenberger
J. Altenberger
TBT. Ben-Gal
T. Ben-Gal
ABA. Böhmer
A. Böhmer
JCJosep Comín-Colet
Josep Comín-Colet
GWG. Wikström
G. Wikström
The intravenous inodilator levosimendan was developed for the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. In the last decade scientific and clinical interest has arisen for its repetitive or intermittent use in patients with advanced chronic, but not necessarily acutely decompensated, heart failure. Recent studies have suggested long-lasting favourable effects of levosimendan when administered repetitively, in terms of haemodynamic parameters, neurohormonal and inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. The existing data, however, requires further exploration to allow for definitive conclusions on the safety and clinical efficacy of repetitive use of levosimendan. A panel of 30 experts from 15 countries convened to review and discuss the existing data, and agreed on the patient groups that can be considered to potentially benefit from intermittent treatment with levosimendan. The panel gave recommendations regarding patient dosing and monitoring, derived from the available evidence and from clinical experience. The current data suggest that in selected patients and support out-of-hospital care, intermittent/repetitive levosimendan can be used in advanced heart failure to maintain patient stability. Further studies are needed to focus on morbidity and mortality outcomes, dosing intervals, and patient monitoring. Recommendations for the design of further clinical studies are made.

1 October 2023 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ATArco J. Teske
Arco J. Teske
Rohit MoudgilRohit Moudgil
Rohit Moudgil
TLTeresa López-Fernández
Teresa López-Fernández
ABAna Barac
Ana Barac
SBSherry Ann Brown
Sherry Ann Brown
DSDiego Sadler
Diego Sadler
BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

29 November 2021 in Journal of Cardiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AHAmir Hadanny
Amir Hadanny
RSRoni Shouval
Roni Shouval
JWJianhua Wu
Jianhua Wu
CGChris P. Gale
Chris P. Gale
RURon Unger
Ron Unger
ZIZaza Iakobishvili
Zaza Iakobishvili

23 August 2016 in Cardiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RBRoy Beigel
Roy Beigel
ZIZaza Iakobishvili
Zaza Iakobishvili
Shlomo NirShlomo Nir
Shlomo Nir
ASAmit Segev
Amit Segev
GWGuy Witberg
Guy Witberg
SMShlomi Matetzky
Shlomi Matetzky
Objective: To assess the real-world use, clinical outcomes, and adherence to novel P2Y12 inhibitors. Methods: We evaluated 1,093 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing a percutaneous intervention. Patients were derived from a prospective, multicenter, nationwide registry and were followed for 30 days; 381 patients (35%) received clopidogrel, 468 (43%) received prasugrel, and 244 (22%) received ticagrelor. Patients treated with clopidogrel were older and more likely to suffer from chronic renal failure and stroke and/or present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (p < 0.01 for all). Independent predictors of undertreatment with novel P2Y12 inhibitors included: older age (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.1-0.27, p < 0.0001), a prior stroke (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.2-0.68, p = 0.008), and NSTEMI (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.26-0.54, p < 0.0001). Results: Novel P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular events, major bleeding, and/or death (7.6 vs.11%, HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1, p = 0.05). However, after a multivariate analysis this trend was not statistically significant. Patients discharged with ticagrelor versus thienopyridines demonstrated a higher rate of crossover to other P2Y12 inhibitors (11 vs. 5%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: In a real-world cohort, there was an underutilization of novel P2Y12 inhibitors which was more pronounced in higher-risk subsets that might benefit from novel P2Y12 inhibitors at least as much as other patients.