Israel Medical Association Journal

Objectives: To evaluate in a randomized control trial whether uninterrupted administration of angiotensin II (AngII) blockade medications influence estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography.

Methods: Patients receiving treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARB) were recruited consecutively. The enrolled subjects were randomized into three groups at a 1:1:1 ratio: group A (ACE/ARB stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure and restarted immediately after the procedure), group B (ACE/ARB stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure and restarted 24 hours after the procedure), and group C (ACE/ARB continued throughout the study period). Plasma creatinine was measured and eGFR was calculated according to the Cockroft-Gault equation before and 48 hours after the coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a change in eGFR at 48 hours.

Results: Groups A, B and C comprised 30, 31 and 33 patients respectively. The mean age of the study population was 65 ± 12 years and 67% were males. Fifty percent of the subjects had diabetes mellitus. The primary endpoint analysis showed that at 48 hours after the procedure there was no difference in ΔeGFR between groups A and C (4.25 ± 12.19 vs. 4.65 ± 11.76, P = 0.90) and groups B and C (3.72 ± 17.42 vs. 4.65 ± 11.76, P = 0.82). In post-hoc analysis the patients were clustered according to the following groups: medical alternation (group A and B) versus control (group C) and to baseline eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min vs. eGFR < 60 ml/min. In patients with baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min the ΔeGFR (baseline eGFR-eGFR 48 hours post-angiography) was significantly different between the intervention vs. control group (median 5.61 vs. median -2.19, P = 0.03 respectively). While in patients with baseline eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min there was no significant difference in ΔeGFR between the intervention and control groups.

Conclusions: ACE-I and ARB can safely be used before and after coronary angiography in patients with eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min. 

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease are at high risk of mycobacterial infection.

Objectives: To analyze the difficulties in reaching an accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis in dialysis patients.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective follow-up of patients who attended our peritoneal and hemodialysis units during the 10 year period 1995–2005.

Results: Our dialysis unit diagnosed 10 cases of tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and 9 cases of Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis. In the former group, five patients had mycobacterium in the sputum, which was diagnosed by intraabdominal mass biopsy in one, culture of the gastric juices in one, and pleural fluid culture or pleural biopsy in three. One of these patients was suffering from pleural TB[1] as well as Potts disease. Of the patients with Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis, five were diagnosed by sputum cultures, three by urine cultures and one in peritoneal fluid. Differences in treatment and outcome were also reviewed.

Conclusions: The diagnosis of TB in dialysis patients should be approached with a high index of suspicion. It is clear that extensive diagnostic procedures are required to ensure an accurate diagnosis of the disease. Tuberculosis incurs a significant added burden due to the need for isolation of infected patients within the dialysis unit. Treatment of patients with Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis should be addressed individually.