Donna M. Gallik

Montefiore Medical Center, New York City, New York, United States

Are you Donna M. Gallik?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)5.59 Total impact

  • Donna M. Gallik · Soo G. Kim · Kevin J. Ferrick · James A. Roth · John D. Fisher ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sotalol’s usefulness in treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is unproven. This study evaluated (1) the efficacy of sotalol in preventing recurrences of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter and controlling ventricular rate (in chronic atrial fibrillation or relapse of paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias), (2) the safety of sotalol, and (3) predictors of sotalol efficacy. Thirty-three patients, 28 with paroxysmal and five with chronic atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, received an average dose of 265 ± 119 mg of oral sotalol per day. During a 10 ± 12 month follow-up, recurrence rate for paroxysmal arrhythmia was 64%, with a 50% recurrence at 4.6 months. For patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, ventricular rates were well controlled with sotalol administration (136 ± 33 beats/min versus 88 ± 23 beats/min; p = 0.04). No patient with chronic atrial fibrillation converted to sinus rhythm during the study. Side effects necessitated sotalol discontinuation in three patients. By multivariate analysis, younger age, higher ejection fraction, and absence of hypertension independently predicted sotalol efficacy. (Am Heart J 1997;134:155-160.)
    American Heart Journal 09/1997; 134(2-134):155-160. DOI:10.1016/S0002-8703(97)70118-2 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • Donna M. Gallik · Uri M. Ben-Zur · Jay N. Gross · Seymour Furman ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lead fracture, occurring in approximately 1%-4% of patients, is an infrequent, but potentially catastrophic complication of permanent pacing systems. Its incidence in transvenous defibrillator systems has not been established. We analyzed data from 757 patients undergoing implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems using the Medtronic Transvene Lead system between October 20, 1989 and June 25, 1992 to determine if site of venous approach influenced incidence of lead fracture. All patients received a 3-lead system in 1 of 3 configurations: (1) right ventricle/superior vena cava/subcutaneous patch; (2) right ventricle/coronary sinus/subcutaneous patch; or (3) right ventricle/superior vena cava/coronary sinus. Of 767 right ventricular leads placed, 523 were placed via the subclavian vein, 221 via cephalic vein, and 18 via the internal jugular (5 leads were implanted using another vein). The total number of leads is greater than the total number of patients, as five patients received a second defibrillator system if the initial system was explanted and reimplanted for any reason. Seven patients (0.9%) had right ventricular lead fracture, presenting with inappropriate defibrillator shocks (1), loss of pacing ability (3), both loss of pacing ability and inappropriate shocks (1), or increased pacing threshold (2). All patients required reoperation. All had leads placed by the subclavian venous approach, with chest X ray confirming fracture at the clavicle-first rib junction in 6 of 7 cases. Using Fisher's Exact test, the difference in lead fracture between subclavian and cephalic vein implant approached statistical significance (P = 0.08). The trend toward increased lead fracture incidence with leads placed via subclavian vein suggests that cephalic vein approach may be preferable to avoid this complication.
    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 08/1996; 19(7):1089-94. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03418.x · 1.13 Impact Factor