Bioelectric Impedance Analysis in the Diagnosis of Vesicoureteral Reflux

Background: Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is a common abnormality of the urinary tract in childhood. Objectives: As urine enters the ureters and renal pelvis during voiding in vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), we hypothesized that change in body water composition before and after voiding may be less different in children with VUR. Patients and Methods: Patients were grouped as those with VUR (Group 1) and without VUR (Group 2). Bioelectric impedance analysis was performed before and after voiding, and third space fluid (TSF) (L), percent of total body fluid (TBF%), extracellular fluid (ECF%), and intracellular fluid (ICF%) were recorded. After change of TSF, TBF, ECF, ICF (ΔTSF, ΔTBF%, ΔECF%, ΔICF%), urine volume (mL), and urine volume/body weight (mL/kg) were calculated. Groups 1 and 2 were compared for these parameters. In addition, pre- and post-voiding body fluid values were compared in each group. Results: TBF%, ECF%, ICF%, and TSF in both pre- and post-voiding states and ΔTBF%, ΔECF%, ΔICF%, and ΔTSF after voiding were not different between groups. However, while post-voiding TBF%, ECF% was significantly decreased in Group 1 (64.5 ± 8.1 vs 63.7 ± 7.2, P = 0.013 for TBF%), there was not post-voiding change in TSF in the same group. On the other hand, there was also a significant TSF decrease in Group 2. Conclusions: Bladder and ureter can be considered as the third space. Thus, we think that BIA has been useful in discriminating children with VUR as there was no decreased in patients with VUR, although there was decreased TSF in patients without VUR. However, further studies are needed to increase the accuracy of this hypothesis.

Comparison Between Diuretic Urography (IVP) and Diuretic Renography for Diagnosis of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children

Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is one of the most common causes of urinary tract obstruction in children. Several methods are used to diagnose upper urinary tract obstruction including renal ultrasonography (US), intravenous pyelogram (IVP), diuretic renography (DR), magnetic resonance urography (MRU) and antegrade or retrograde pyelography. Nowadays it is suggested to use diuretic renography as the best method for diagnosing of UPJO. There is no comparative study between IVP and DR scan for diagnosis of UPJO in children. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare IVP with furosemide injection and diuretic renography in diagnosis of clinically significant UPJO. Patients and Methods: This was a cross sectional study performed in 153 UPJO suspected children (121 boys, 32 girls) based on US findings in cases presented with urinary tract infection (UTI), prenatal hydronephrosis, abdominal/flank pain, abdominal mass and hematuria. Renal ultrasound was used as an initial screening tool for detection of urinary tract abnormality. Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) was ruled out by voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). Serum creatinin, blood urea nitrogen, urinalysis and urine culture was screened in all cases. IVP with furosemide and DR were performed as soon as possible after the mentioned workup. Results: During a five year period, 46 out of 153 patients were diagnosed as UPJO based on diuretic renography: the age ranged from 4 months to 13 years (mean: 3.1 ± 0.78 years). There was a significant higher (76%) proportion of UPJO in the boys and in the left side (78%). The sensitivity of IVP with furosemide injection in diagnosis of UPJO was 91.3% whereas DR was accepted as standard for diagnostic procedure in diagnosis of UPJO. Conclusions: Although DR is accepted as the best method for diagnosis of UPJO, we found a small sensitivity difference between IVP and DR in kidneys with normal or near normal function. In many settings such as small cities lacking facilities for advanced isotope imaging technology, use of IVP with diuretic maybe an acceptable procedure for diagnosis of UPJO.

Synthesis and antibacterial study of some s-substituted aliphatic analogues of 2-mercapto-5-(1-(4-toluenesulfonyl) piperidin-4-yl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole

Purpose: To synthesize a series of analogues of 1,3,4-oxadiazole and to evaluate their antibacterial activity. Methods: Ethyl piperidin-4-carboxylate (1) was mixed with 4-toluenesulfonyl chloride (2) in benignant conditions to yield ethyl 1-(4-toluenesulfonyl)piperidin-4-carboxylate (3) and then 1-(4- toluenesulfonyl)piperidin-4-carbohydrazide (4). Intermolecular cyclization of 4 into 2-mercapto-5-(1-(4- toluenesulfonyl) piperidin-4-yl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole (5) was obtained on reflux with CS2 in the presence of KOH. Molecule 5 was stirred with alkyl halides, 6a-i, in DMF in the presence of LiH to synthesize the final compounds, 7a-i. The structures of these molecules were elucidated by Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR) spectroscopy, proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) and electron impact mass spectrometry (EI-MS). Antibacterial activity was evaluated against five bacterial strains, namely, Salmonella typhi, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis, with ciprofloxacin used as standard antibacterial agent. Results: Out of nine synthesized derivatives, compound 7a was the most active against three bacterial strains, S. typhi, E. coli and P. aeruginosa, with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 9.11 ± 0.40, 9.89 ± 0.45 and 9.14 ± 0.72 μM, respectively, compared with 7.45 ± 0.58, 7.16 ± 0.58 and 7.14 ± 0.18 μM, respectively, for the reference standard (ciprofloxacin). Similarly, compounds 7a - 7c showed relatively good antibacterial activity against B. subtilis strain while compound 7e - 7g revealed good results against S. typhi bacterial strain. Conclusion: The results indicate that S-substituted derivatives of the parent compound are more effective antibacterial agents than the parent compound, even with minor differences in substituents