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

Search results


August 2002
Sivan Ekstein, MD, Amir Elami, MD, Gideon Merin, MD, Mervyn S. Gotsman, MD, FACC and Chaim Lotan, MD, FACC

Background: Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease are candidates for either angioplasty and stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting. A prospective randomized study designed to compare the both methods included only a minority of the eligible patients.

Objective: To compare coronary artery bypass grafting to angioplasty plus stenting in patients with multivessel disease who declined randomization to a multicenter study (the ARTS).

Methods: During 1997-98 we prospectively followed 96 consecutive patients who were eligible according to the ARTS criteria but refused randomization. Of these patients, 50 underwent angioplasty + stenting and 46 underwent coronary bypass surgery. We compared the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events, chest pain recurrence, quality of life and procedural cost during the first 6 months.

Results: All procedures were completed successfully without mortality or cerebral events. The rate of Q-wave myocardial infarction was 2% in the AS[1] group vs. 0% in the CABG[2] group (not significant). Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (14%) in the AS group and in 21 patients (45%) in the CABG group (P < 0.01). At 6 months follow-up the incidence of major cardiac and cerebral events was similar in both groups (11% and 4% in the AS and CABG groups respectively, P=NS). Seventeen patients (36%) in the AS group required repeat revascularization compared to only 3 (7%) in the CABG group (P=0.002). Nevertheless, quality of life was better, hospitalization was shorter and the cost was lower during the first 6 months after angioplasty.

Conclusion: Angioplasty with stenting compared to coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel disease resulted in similar short-term major complications. However, 36% of patients undergoing angioplasty may need further revascularization procedures during the first 6 months.


___________________

[1]
AS = angioplasty + stenting

[2] CABG = coronary artery bypass graft

Raanan Shamir, MD, Rami Eliakim, MD, Nitza Lahat, PhD, Esther Sobel, MSc and Aaron Lerner, MD, MHA

Background: Celiac disease is common in both children and adults. Small intestinal biopsy is mandatory for establishing a diagnosis. Anti-endomysial antibodies, detected by immunofluorescence, have a sensitivity and specificity close to 100% in the diagnosis of CD[1]. Recently, tissue transglutaminase has been identified as the target autoantigen of antibodies against endomysium, and TTG[2] antibodies are comparable to EMA-IMF[3] in the diagnosis of CD.

Objective: To evaluate a new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit for EMA, compared to EMA-IMF and TTG antibodies in the diagnosis of CD.

Methods: Our study population included all subjects with positive EMA-IMF who underwent intestinal biopsy (n=21). From the same sera, TTG antibodies and EMA-ELISA[4] were determined, and all antibody results were compared to the biopsy findings.

Results: EMA-IMF was able to predict biopsy findings of CD in 19 of 21 cases (90.5%). When patients with biopsy findings compatible with CD and positive EMA-IMF (n=19) were tested for EMA-ELISA and TTG antibodies, 18 of the 19 were positive for both EMA-ELISA and TTG antibodies. A significant correlation was found between EMA-ELISA and TTG antibody titers (r = 0.74, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that EMA-ELISA is comparable to TTG antibodies in the diagnosis of CD, and supports the use of EMA-ELISA as a serologic marker for this disease.


_______________________

[1]
CD = celiac disease

[2] TTG = tissue transglutaminase

[3] EMA-IMF = anti-endomysial antibodies measured by immunofluorescence

[4] ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Rachel Goldwag, MSW, Ayelet Berg, PhD, Dan Yuval, PhD and Jochanan Benbassat, MD

Background: Patient feedback is increasingly being used to assess the quality of healthcare.

Objective: To identify modifiable independent determinants of patient dissatisfaction with hospital emergency care.

Methods: The study group comprised a random sample of 3,152 of the 65,966 adult Israeli citizens discharged during November 1999 from emergency departments in 17 of the 32 acute care hospitals in Israel. A total of 2,543 (81%) responded to a telephone survey tht used a structured questionnaire. The ndependent variables included: hospital characteristics, patient demographic variables, patient perception of care, self-rated health status, problem severity, and outcome of care. The dependent variable was dissatisfaction with overall ED[1] experience on a 1–5 Likert-type scale dichotomized into not satisfied (4 and 5) and satisfied (1,2 and 3).

Results: Eleven percent of the population reported being dissatisfied with their emergency room visit. Univariate analyses revealed that dissatisfaction was significantly related to ethnic group, patient education, hospital identity and geographic location, perceived comfort of ED facilities, registration expediency, waiting times, perceived competence and attitudes of caregivers, explanations provided, self-rated health status, and resolution of the problem that led to referral to the ED. Multivariate analyses using logistic regressions indicated that the four most powerful predictors of dissatisfaction were patient perception of doctor competence and attitudes, outcomes of care, ethnicity, and self-rated health status.

Conclusions: Attempts to reduce dissatisfaction with emergency care should focus on caregiver conduct and attitudes. It may also be useful to improve caregiver communication skills, specifically with ethnic minorities and with patients who rate their health status as poor.


_____________________________

[1]
ED = emergency department

Gerard Espinosa, MD, Ricard Cervera, MD, PhD, Joan-Carles Reverter, MD, PhD, Dolors Tassies, MD, PhD, Josep Font, MD, PhD and Miguel Ingelmo, MD, PhD
Wendy Chen, MSW, Ruth Balaban, MA, RN, Varda Stanger, PhD, Ra’aya Haruvi, MSW, Shmuel Zur, MD and Arie Augarten, MD
July 2002
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