• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sat, 18.05.24

Search results


September 2010
G. Rosner, P. Rozen, D. Bercovich, C. Shochat, I. Solar, H. Strul, R. Kariv and Z. Halpern

Background: Patients with multiple (< 100) colorectal adenomatous polyps are at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Genetic evaluation of those patients who test negative for APC gene mutation is both a clinical and economic burden but is critical for counseling and surveillance. In Israel, this is confounded by the fact that national health insurance does not fully cover genetic evaluation of APC gene exon 16.

Objectives: To perform a comprehensive genetic evaluation of APC gene mutation-negative polyposis patients with the aim of developing a future evaluation protocol.

Methods: Genetic analyses were performed in 29 APC gene mutation-negative Jewish individuals with 5 to ≥ 40 colonic adenomas who did not fulfill Amsterdam (clinical) criteria for Lynch syndrome. Analyses included completion of APC gene exon 16 sequencing, analysis for APC gene copy number variations (deletions or duplications), MUTYH gene sequencing, and microsatellite instability in CRC[1] patients fulfilling “Bethesda” (laboratory investigation) criteria for Lynch syndrome.

Results: Completion of APC gene exon 16 sequencing revealed one patient with the E1317Q polymorphism. All were normal by APC multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification analysis. Pathogenic MUTYH mutations were found in three patients, all of North African origin; two additional patients had variants of unknown significance. One of six patients with Bethesda-positive criteria was MSI2-High with immunohistology consistent with MLH1 mutation.

Conclusions: Based on this small but well-characterized cohort with multiple colorectal adenomas, Lynch syndrome needs to be excluded if there are compatible criteria; otherwise MUTYH sequencing is probably the first step in evaluating APC-negative patients, especially for Jews of North African descent. Completing APC exon 16 sequencing and copy number variations analysis should probably be the last evaluations.

 






[1] CRC = colorectal cancer


September 2009
B. Belhassen, T. Ohayon-Tsioni, A. Glick and S. Viskin

Background: The predictive value of electrophysiologic studies depends on the aggressiveness of the programmed ventricular stimulation protocol.

Objectives: To assess if non-inducibility with an "aggressive" protocol of PVS[1] identifies post-infarction patients with low ejection fraction (EF[2] ≤ 30%) who may safely be treated without implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Methods: We studied 154 patients during a 9 year period. Our aggressive PVS protocol included: a) stimulus current five times the diastolic threshold (≤ 3 mA) and b) repetition of double and triple extrastimulation at the shortest coupling intervals that capture the ventricle.

Results: Sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in 116 patients (75.4%) and 112 (97%) of them received an ICD[3] (EPS[4]+/ICD+ group). Of the 38 non-inducible patients, 34 (89.5%) did not receive an ICD (EPS-/ICD- group). In comparison to the EPS+/ICD+ group, EPS-/ICD- group patients were older (69 ± 10 vs. 65 ± 10 years, P < 0.05), had a lower EF (23 ± 5% vs. 25 ± 5%,  P < 0.05) and a higher prevalence of left bundle branch block (45.5% vs. 20.2%, P < 0.005). Follow-up was longer for EPS+/ICD+ patients (40 ± 26 months) than for EPS-/ICD- patients (27 ± 22 months) (P = 0.011). Twelve EPS+/ICD+ patients (10.7%) and 5 EPS-/ICD- patients (14.7%) died during follow-up (P = 0.525). Kaplan-Meier survival curves did not show a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.18).
Conclusions: The mortality rate in patients without inducible VTAs[5] using an aggressive PVS protocol and who did not undergo subsequent ICD implantation is not different from that of patients with inducible arrhythmias who received an ICD. Using this protocol, as many as one-fourth of primary prevention ICD implants could be spared without compromising patient prognosis







[1] PVS = programmed ventricular stimulation



[2] EF = ejection fraction



[3] ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator



[4] EPS electrophysiologic study



[5] VTA = ventricular tachyarrhythmias


September 2003
A.B. Chkhotua, T. Klein, E. Shabtai, A. Yussim, N. Bar-Nathan, E. Shaharabani, S. Lustig and E. Mor

Background: Recent advances in immunosuppressive therapy have led to a substantial improvement in the outcome of kidney transplantation. Living unrelated donors may become a source of additional organs for patients on the kidney waiting list.

Objectives: To study the impact of combination of calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate-mofetile, together with steroids, on outcomes of living related and unrelated transplants. 

Methods: Between September 1997 and January 2000, 129 patients underwent living related (n=80) or unrelated (n=49) kidney transplant. The mean follow-up was 28.2 months. Immunosuppressive protocols consisted of MMF[1] with cyclosporine (41%) or tacrolimus (59%), plus steroids. Patient and graft survival data, rejection rate, and graft functional parameters were compared between the groups.

Results: LUD[2] recipients were older (47.8 vs. 33.6 years) with higher number of re-transplants (24.5% vs. 11.2% in LRD[3] recipients, P < 0.05). Human leukocyte antigen matching was higher in LRD recipients (P < 0.001). Acute rejection developed in 28.6% of LUD and 27.5% of LRD transplants (P = NS). Creatinine levels at 1, 2 and 3 years post-transplant were 1.6, 1.7 and 1.7 mg/dl for LRD patients and 1.5, 1.5 and 1.3 mg/dl for LUD recipients (P = NS). There was no difference in patient survival rates between the groups. One, 2 and 3 year graft survival rates were similar in LRD (91.3%, 90% and 87.5%) and LUD (89.8%, 87.8% and 87.8%) recipients.

Conclusions: Despite HLA[4] disparity, rejection and survival rates of living unrelated transplants under current immunosuppressive protocols are comparable to those of living related transplants.






[1] MMF = mycophenolate-mofetile



[2] LUD = living unrelated donor



[3] LRD = living related donor



[4] HLA = human leukocyte antigen


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