• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 25.11.24

Search results


January 2023
Naama Hermann MD, Pnina Mor CNM PhD, Orit Kaidar-Person MD, Rinat Bernstein-Molho MD, Mali Brodsky RN MSc, Dana Madorsky Feldman MD, Anath A. Flugelman MD MPH MA, Hadar Aboody Nevo MD, Danna Meshoulam Avital MD, Miri Sklair-Levy MD, Eitan Friedman MD PhD, Tanir M. Allweis MD

Background: Population screening for the BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish women was recently implemented in Israel and is expected to lead to a 10-fold increase in the diagnosis of asymptomatic carriers. Performing the screening follow-up within multidisciplinary dedicated clinics for carriers is recommended for early detection and risk reduction.

Objectives: To determine the availability, capacity, and practices of dedicated screening clinic for BRCA carriers in Israel.

Methods: A telephone-based survey of all public hospitals in Israel was conducted October 2020 to August 2021 to determine whether they had a dedicated clinic. Dedicated clinics were defined as multidisciplinary screening clinics offering at least breast and gynecological screening and risk reducing services on site. The clinic director or nurse navigator answered a questionnaire about screening practices followed by a semi-structured interview.

Results: Of the ten dedicated BRCA clinics found in Israel, nine participated. Approximately 4500 BRCA carriers are currently being followed. No specialized clinics are available in the southern district or in the northernmost half of the northern district of Israel, leading to a disparity between periphery and center. Screening recommendations, although asserted as adhering to international guidelines, vary among clinics including age at initiating of clinical exam, use of adjunct imaging modalities, and follow-up during lactation and after risk reducing surgery.

Conclusions: There is a suboptimal distribution of dedicated clinics for BRCA carriers in Israel. Nationally centralized attempt to create guidelines that will unify screening practices is warranted, especially considering the expected increase in demand.

March 2011
I. Krause, N. Herman, R. Cleper, A. Fraser and M. Davidovits

Background: Acute renal failure (ARF) is a common complication in critically ill children. It is known as an important predictor of morbidity and mortality in this population. Data on the factors affecting the choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality and its impact on mortality of children with ARF[1] are limited.

Objectives: We retrospectively studied 115 children with ARF necessitating RRT[2] during the period 1995–2005 to evaluate the effect of several prognostic factors as well as RRT type on their immediate outcome.

Methods: The data collected from charts included demographics, primary disease, accompanying medical conditions, use of vasopressor support, indications for dialysis, RRT modality, and complications of dialysis. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Variables associated with mortality (P < 0.1) at the univariable level were studied by a multivariable logistic regression model.

Results: The most common cause of ARF was congenital heart disease (n=75). RRT modalities included peritoneal dialysis (PD) (n=81), hemodialfiltration (HDF) (n=31) and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) (n=18). Median RRT duration was 4 days (range 1–63 days). Overall mortality was 52.2%. IHD[3] was associated with the best survival rate (P < 0.01 vs. PD[4] and HDF[5]), while children treated with HDF had the worse outcome. Hemodynamic instability and systemic infections were associated with greater mortality, but the rate of these complications did not differ between the study groups.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that IHD[6] when applied to the right patient in an appropriate setting may be a safe and efficient RRT modality in children with ARF. Randomized prospective trials are needed to further evaluate the impact of different RRT modalities on outcome in children with ARF.






[1]               ARF = acute renal failure



[2]               RRT = renal replacement therapy



[3]               IHD = intermittent hemodialysis



[4]               PD = peritoneal dialysis



[5]               HDF = hemodialfiltration



[6]               IHD = renal replacement therapy



 
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