Higher risk for renal failure in first-degree relatives of white patients with end-stage renal disease: a population-based study

To explore the possibility that hereditary factors increase the risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), 669 patients with ESRD in the province of Newfoundland, Canada from 1987 to 1993 were studied. Detailed family histories were obtained from 584 (87%) consecutive probands and 499 spousal control subjects. Diseases with a Mendelian pattern of inheritance accounted for 8.4% of the cases; 4.5% of the cases were caused by autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). Glomerulonephritis was the original cause of renal failure in 25% of the probands, diabetes mellitus (DM) in 20%, unknown in 14%, interstitial kidney disease in 11%, other disease in 12%, multifactorial in 4%, and hypertension in 5%. In the group without a Mendelian pattern of inheritance, 28% of the probands had a first-, second-, or third-degree relative with renal failure associated with death or dialysis versus 15% of the controls. Compared with 0.4% of the control group, 1.2% of the first-degree relatives of probands developed renal failure (odds ratio [OR]=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 5.2). No difference was observed when risks were compared for second-degree relatives, but a highly significant increased risk was observed for third-degree relatives (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.4). The highest rates of affected first-degree relatives occurred in probands with hypertensive renal failure (2.3%), DM (1.6%), and interstitial kidney disease (1.6%). The annual provincial incidence of ESRD, registered with the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (CORR) from 1981 to 1993 was 79 per million, excluding the 8% of patients with Mendelian inherited disease. The similar rate of ESRD in first-degree relatives of probands without Mendelian inherited disease was 297 per million. We conclude that not only is the contribution of Mendelian inherited diseases to ESRD high, but there is also an increased risk for renal failure in first-degree relatives of probands without a Mendelian inherited renal disease in a white population.     

Comparison of two effervescent agents for double-contrast upper gastrointestinal tract radiography

We prospectively evaluated the efficacy in 100 patients of two effervescent contrast agents commonly used in routine double-contrast upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract examinations: Baros and E-Z-Gas II granules. The study was double blinded. Two radiologists, who were not aware of which effervescent agent was being used, objectively evaluated the radiographic studies. Patient ease in swallowing and acceptance of the effervescent granules was 94% for Baros and 68% for E-Z-Gas II granules. The objective evaluation of the radiographs showed adequate gastric distension (Baros, 94%; E-Z-Gas II, 90%) and adequate to excellent mucosal coating for both agents (Baros, 92%, E-Z-Gas II, 94%). Areae gastricae were better seen with Baros (64% vs. 30%), and air bubbles were less of a problem with Baros. We conclude that Baros effervescent granules have certain distinct advantages over E-Z-Gas II granules regarding patient tolerance and acceptance, better visualization of the areae gastricae, and less degradation of the quality of the radiographs by air bubbles. The differences in mucosal coatings for the two agents was insignificant.     

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation mimicking post‐transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder

Approximately 5% of patients with end‐stage cirrhosis undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation have occult hepatocellular carcinoma. Careful follow up is required to detect recurrent tumour, and knowledge of the patterns of recurrence may avoid diagnostic confusion with other malignancies, such as post‐transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder. This case report illustrates an unusual presentation of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in a 56‐year‐old man presenting with a para‐aortic soft tissue mass, thought clinically and radiologically to represent lymphoma or post‐transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder. This case demonstrates that recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma can present late after transplantation as retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and should alert physicians and radiologists to be aware of the radiological appearances of recurrence and of the need for early biopsy to avoid diagnostic confusion with other malignancies.