Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is the main determinant for Helicobacter pylori treatment failure. Regional antimicrobial susceptibility testing is essential for appropriate antibiotic selection to achieve high eradication rates.

Objectives: To assess primary and secondary H. pylori resistance in isolates recovered from Israeli naïve and treatment failures. To identify predictors of resistance.

Methods: In this retrospective study, in vitro activity of isolated H. pylori in Israel was tested against metronidazole, clarithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, and levofloxacin in 128 isolates: 106 from treatment failures and 22 from naïve untreated patients. The minimal inhibitory concentration values were determined according to the Etest instructions. Treatment failures previously failed at least one treatment regimen.

Results: No resistance to amoxicillin and tetracycline was detected. Resistance to metronidazole and clarithromycin was high in H. pylori isolates both from treated and untreated patients: 68.9%, 68.2% for metronidazole (P = 0.95); 53.8%, 59.1% for clarithromycin (P = 0.64), respectively. Dual resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole was seen in 45.3% and 50%, respectively (P = 0.68). Resistance to levofloxacin was detected in two (1.9%) isolates from treated patients. Simultaneous resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin was seen in an isolate from a treated patient. Age was the only predictor of resistance to metronidazole and clarithromycin.

Conclusion: The resistance rates to both single and dual metronidazole and clarithromycin in isolates recovered from both Israeli naïve and treated patients is high. Low resistance renders levofloxacin an attractive option for second or third line treatment. Therapeutic outcome would benefit from susceptibility testing after treatment failure.

Objectives: To evaluate the predictive value regarding patients' survival once the diagnosis of “general deterioration” replaces an ICD-9 diagnosis upon re-admission.

Methods: In a retrospective cohort case-control study, we screened the records of patients re-admitted at least three times during the past 2 years. For each patient's death during the third hospitalization, we matched (for age and gender) a patient who survived the third hospitalization. We evaluated 14 parameters potentially accountable for increased risk of mortality, e.g., length of stay at each admission, interval to re-admission, etc. We applied a multifactorial analysis using logistic regression to predict the risk of mortality during the third hospitalization as potentially affected by the aforementioned parameters.

Results: The study included 81 study patients and 81 controls. Of the 14 parameters potentially explaining an increased risk of mortality during the third hospitalization, several were found to be statistically significant. The most significant was the diagnostic switch from a specific ICD-9 diagnosis on first admission to the non-specific diagnosis of “general deterioration” at the second hospitalization. In such cases, the risk of death during the third hospitalization was increased by 5300% (odds ratio = 54, P = 0.008). The increased risk of mortality was not restricted to patients with malignancy as their background diagnosis.

Conclusions: At re-admission, a switch from disease-specific diagnosis to the obscure diagnosis “general deterioration” increases the subsequent risk of mortality.

Objectives: To assess the reasons given by gynecologists why they failed to insert a LNG-IUS.

Methods: We obtained data from the sole distributor in Israel that prospectively recorded these cases when contacted by gynecologists following an insertion failure.

Results: The mean rate of failed insertions was 0.95% (range 0.77–1.03%) for the 5 year study period 2006–2010. The most common reasons reported by gynecologists for LNG-IUS insertion failure were loss of sterility of the device, inability to insert the device due to a stenotic cervical canal, accidental removal of the device following a successful insertion due to hasty removal of the inserter or the use of blunt scissors, and removal of the newly inserted LNG-IUS following ultrasound evidence that it was misplaced.

Conclusions:  Gynecologists should be aware of the common pitfalls associated with insertion of an LNG-IUS. Several techniques that may aid in avoiding these mishaps are described.