• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 14.06.24

Search results

November 2003
A. Korzets, A. Kantarovsky, J. Lehmann, D. Sachs, R. Gershkovitz, G. Hasdan, M. Vits, I. Portnoy and Z. Korzets

Background: The ischemic “steal” syndrome complicates angio-access in a growing number of hemodialysed patients. Until now, operative attempts (fistula ligation or banding) to treat this problem have met with only limited success.

Objective: To assess the results of DRIL (distal revascularization-interval ligation) procedure in treating the “steal” syndrome.

Methods: A retrospective review (1996–2002) was conducted of all 11 patients who underwent the DRIL[1] procedure in two tertiary care hemodialysis units.

Results: Two patients were excluded because of inadequate medical documentation. All of the nine patients remaining suffered from overt atherosclerotic disease, six had diabetic nephropathy and four were smokers. The arterio-venous access, which led to the “steal” syndrome, was proximally located in all (antecubital in 8, thigh area in 1). “Steal” symptoms included hand pain, paraesthesia, neurologic deficits and gangrenous ulcers. DRIL was technically successful in all patients. There were no perioperative deaths. Immediate and complete relief of pain was achieved in eight of the nine patients. One patient with gangrene later required a transmetacarpal amputation. No patient required hand amputation. During follow-up (range 1–26 months) hemodialysis was continued uninterruptedly using the problematic AVA[2] in all patients. Thrombosis occurred in the AVA in only two patients after the DRIL procedure at 9 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. Three patient deaths were unrelated to the DRIL.

Conclusions: In selected patients the DRIL procedure is a safe and effective way to treat the “steal” syndrome. AVA patency is not compromised by this operation. Preoperative angiography, before and after manual compression of the AVA, is crucial for the proper selection of patients who will benefit most from the DRIL procedure.

[1] DRIL = distal revascularization-interval ligation

[2] AVA = arteriovenous access

October 2002
Misha Witz, MD, Jonathan M. Lehmann, MB, BChir, Ali Shnaker, MD, Itamar Pomeranz, MD,George Leichtman, MD and Benthly Novis, MD, FRCP
March 2001
Jonathan M. Lehmann, MB, Bchir, Ali Shnaker, MD, Daniel Silverberg, MD, Kati Dayan, MD and Misha Witz, MD
February 2000
Arie Levine MD, Yoram Bujanover MD, Shimon Reif MD, Svetlana Gass, Nurit Vardinon, Ram Reifen MD and Dan Lehmann PhD

Background: Anti-endomysial antibodies are sensitive and specific markers for celiac disease. This antibody has recently been identified as an antibody to tissue transglutaminase, an enzyme that cross-links and stabilizes extracellular matrix proteins.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of an enzyme-linked immunoassay for anti-transglutaminase antibodies, and to compare the results with those of AEA, the current gold standard serological test for celiac disease.

Methods: Serum samples were collected from 33 patients with biopsy-proven celiac disease and AEA tests were performed. Control samples for anti-transglutaminase were obtained from 155 patients. An ELISA test for immunoglobulin A anti-transglutaminase utilizing guinea pig liver transglutaminase was developed and performed on all sera.  Cutoff values for the test were performed using logistic regression and receiver operating curves analysis.

Results: An optical density cutoff value of 0.34 was established for the assay. The mean value was 0.18±0.19 optical density for controls, and 1.65±1.14 for patients with celiac disease (P<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the assay were both 90%, while AEA had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 94%, respectively.

Conclusions: A tissue transglutaminase-based ELISA test is both sensitive and specific for  detection of celiac disease.



AEA = anti-endomysial antibody

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