Search

Background: Proteus syndrome is a very rare condition with less than 100 confirmed cases reported worldwide. We report a case of Proteus syndrome in a two-year-old male who has hemophilia A comorbidity. Case Presentation: A two-year-old male patient was admitted with the chief complaint of severe bleeding in mouth cavity after trauma for two weeks. At admission he was found to have petechiae on buccal mucosa and fecal discoloration due to GI bleeding. We noted multiple abnormalities in his musculoskeletal system and skin. He had lymph edema in left leg, hemihypertrophy, macrodactyly in both foots and macrocephaly. With the history of severe bleeding and recurrent blood product transfusion, we suspected a hemorrhagic disorder. The reduced level of Factor VIII activity confirmed the diagnosis of hemophilia A. Considering patient's various musculoskeletal abnormalities according to the diagnostic criteria and after ruling out similar disorders the diagnosis of Proteus syndrome was established. Conclusion: Because of the variability of clinical features, Proteus syndrome can be confused with other disorders of multiple tissue overgrowth. Our case of Proteus syndrome, who had hemophilia A comorbidity outlines the challenges in diagnosis of such rare combination of diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Acute seizure attack is a stressful experience both for health care personnel and parents. These attacks might cause morbidity and mortality among patients, so reliable methods to control the seizure preferably at home should be developed. This study was performed to measure the time needed to control seizure attacks using intranasal midazolam compared to the common treatment (intravenous diazepam) and to evaluate its probable side effects. " Methods: This study was conducted as a not blind randomized clinical trial among 60 patients coming to™ Imam Ali Hospital, Zahedan, Iran. The patients were 2 months to 15 years old children coming to our emergency department suffering from an acute seizure episode. Intranasal midazolam was administered 0.2 mg/kg equally dropped in both nostrils for case group and intravenous diazepam was administered 0.3mg/kg via IV line for control group. After both treatments the time needed to control the seizure was registered by the practitioner. Pulse rate and Ch saturation were recorded at patients' entrance and in minutes 5 and 10 after drug administration. Findings: The time needed to control seizure using intranasal midazolam (3.16±1.24) was statistically shorter than intravenous diazepam (6.42+2.59] if the time needed to establish IV line in patients treated by intravenous diazepam is taken into account (P<0.001). The readings for O2 saturation or heart rate did not indicate a statistically significant difference between two groups of patients either at entrance or 5 and 10 minutes after drug administration. Conclusion: Considering the shorter time needed to control acute seizure episodes compared to intravenous diazepam and its safety record, intranasal midazolam seems to be a good candidate to replace diazepam, as the drug of choice, in controlling this condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]