Peripheral Vascular Complication from Coronary Angiography: a Case Report of Cholesterol Embolization

A 65-year-old man developed acute limb ischemia, severe abdominal wall and lower limb livedo reticularis following a coronary angiogram. The differential diagnoses of acute limb ischemia and multiple cholesterol emboli syndrome (MCES) are discussed. This work was performed at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 270-05, 76^th Avenue, New Hyde Park, NY 11040.     

Antibody testing in Indian children with celiac disease.

BACKGROUND: We prospectively evaluated the usefulness of IgA tissue transglutaminase antibodies (IgA tTG) in the initial diagnosis of celiac disease (CD) and compared its diagnostic potential with that of IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (IgA EMA) and anti-IgA and IgG gliadin antibodies (AGA and AGG, respectively). METHODS: Sera of 23 untreated children fulfilling the revised ESPGHAN criteria for diagnosis of CD (Group I; mean age 10.8 y); 19 disease controls (Group II; mean age 8.5 y) presenting with chronic diarrhea, short stature or both; and 22 healthy children (Group III; mean age 8.8 y) were studied. These were tested in a blinded manner for AGA, AGG, IgA tTG (guinea pig as antigen) and IgA EMA. RESULTS: In Group I, IgA EMA was positive in 19, IgA tTG in 17, AGA in 14 and AGG in 17 patients. In Group II, these tests were positive in 1, 0, 2 and 14 patients, respectively and in Group III, in 0, 0, 0 and 1 child, respectively. Analyzing data from Group I and II, IgA EMA, IgA tTG, AGA and AGG had sensitivity rates of 83%, 74%, 61% and 74%, respectively; the specificity rates were 95%, 100%, 89% and 26%; positive predictive values were 95%, 100%, 88% and 55% and negative predictive values were 82%, 74%, 65% and 45%, respectively. CONCLUSION: IgA tTG is useful for the diagnosis of CD, with sensitivity and specificity rates comparable to those of EMA and this test is well suited for use in tropical countries like India.     

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma of the mediastinum

A case of malignant fibrous histiocytoma of the mediastinum presenting with unusual features of fever and leucocytosis is reported. This is the youngest patient reported in the literature who had this tumour in the mediastinum.     

Endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy

This is a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate and compare the results, morbidity and surgical time for endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. 70 consecutive patients of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction were selected for the study. 36 patients under went endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 34 had external dacryocystorhinostomy. Selection of the type of operation was left to the patient's choice. All the patients had preoperative counseling and both the procedures were explained in detail with their advantages and disadvantages. Patients not willing for the external incision were selected for endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and others were operated via external approach. Silicone tubes were put in all the patients for three months after surgery. The final follow up was 12 months after the removal of silicone tubes. The patency of the lacrimal passage was confirmed by irrigation, and patients were questioned about their symptoms. The success rates, 12 months after removal of silicone tubes were 100% in endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 88.24% in external dacryocystorhinostomy. The surgical time of endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was 38 minutes as compared to 62 in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Complication rate in both groups was almost equal. Thus, we came to the conclusion that Endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy is a better surgical option to external dacryocystorhinostomy in cases of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, with shorter surgical time.     

Measuring the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs.

Clinical trials of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) include regulatory studies aimed at demonstrating efficacy and reasonable safety, post-marketing open-open label studies and longer term outcome studies. Regulatory trials involve a carefully selected population of patients and are conducted under rigorously standardised conditions. Data from such studies cannot often be translated into clinical practice. Pragmatic post-marketing studies using flexible dosing schedules allow clinicians to better judge the utility of the new drug in a wider population of patients with epilepsy and decide the most appropriate dosing schedules. This paper discusses some of the issues surrounding the measurement of efficacy of new AEDs in both pre- and post-marketing phases of their development. All of the newer AEDs are initially used in patients with refractory partial seizures as adjunctive treatment. These trials are generally parallel-group studies although cross-over designs have been employed. The use of placebo-control is uncontroversial in this type of study. Efficacy endpoints are generally manipulations of seizure frequency on study drug compared to control. Global outcome measures and health related quality of life scores can also be used to measure efficacy. As the standard AEDs are associated with a high rate of seizure remission in patients who receive them as monotherapy, demonstration of superior efficacy of a new agent in a comparative trial will require large numbers of patients in a design that takes into account the natural history of treated epilepsy. Comparing investigational agents to a standard AED in an 'active-control' study with demonstration of equivalent efficacy would seem to be an acceptable way of assessing efficacy of new AEDs in this population. Some regulators, however, do not accept equivalence as proof of efficacy and insist on demonstration of superiority compared to a control. The use of placebo alone in the control group is ethically dubious. Several innovative study designs have, therefore, been used to satisfy regulatory requirements, while maintaining patient safety including withdrawal to monotherapy using high versus low dose comparators. Observational outcome studies provide the best opportunity of exploring the long-term utility of individual AEDs. Such studies largely follow standard clinical practice and need considerable time and resources. They can, however, yield valuable information about the effectiveness of AEDs in everyday clinical practice. Data from regulatory trials should be complemented by postmarketing studies and longer term studies of outcome to help clinicians decide the best way of utilising new AEDs and establishing their role in the therapeutic armamentarium.