No abstract

Regular physical activity appeared associated with lower levels of circulating mtDNA, further confirming the protective, anti-inflammatory effect of exercise.

No abstract

Sixteen patients (15 males, aged 48-70) affected by liver cirrhosis and oesophageal varices were subjected to duplex-Doppler ultrasonographic study (DDUS). Four patients (three with a portal thrombosis and one with a hepatofugal portal flow) were excluded from the subsequent pharmacological test. The twelve remaining patients took part in a double blind cross-over study that evaluated the variations of heart rate (HR), mean systemic arterial pressure (SAP), portal vein diameter (PVD), maximal and mean portal flow velocity (PFV) after the administration of either 40 mg of propranolol or placebo per os, on two consecutive days. Propranolol caused no significant variation in mean SAP and in PVD, whereas it reduced the HR from 67.7 +/- 8.0 to 58.4 +/- 7.0 beats/min (mean +/- s.d.; P less than 0.001); the maxPFV dropped from 18.2 +/- 5.4 to 14.0 +/- 3.7 cm/s (P less than 0.001) and the meanPFV dropped from 15.3 +/- 4.1 to 13.2 +/- 3.1 cm/s (P less than 0.005). No significant variation was observed with placebo. After propranolol administration eight patients exhibited a significant maxPFV decrease, whereas the other four patients exhibited only a drop in HR, suggesting either drug inefficacy, inappropriate dosage or inadequate duration of treatment. DDUS is the only non-invasive method for the examination of the portal vein system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Portal venous flow velocity (PFV) was measured with duplex-Doppler equipment in 50 normal subjects and in 117 patients with suspected chronic liver disease who showed no evidence of decompensation such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, jaundice or oesophageal bleeding. All the patients underwent percutaneous liver biopsy which demonstrated non-cirrhotic liver disease in 58 cases (CH-patients: steatosis 8, persistent chronic hepatitis 8, active chronic hepatitis 42) and liver cirrhosis in the other 59 cases (LC-patients). The normal subjects and the CH-patients had similar values of max-PFV and mean-PFV (max-PFV 26.7 +/- 3.2 and 25.7 +/- 3.4 cm/s respectively; mean-PFV 22.9 +/- 2.8 and 22.4 +/- 3.8 cm/s respectively). The LC-patients' values (max-PFV 19.3 +/- 3.5; mean-PFV 16.9 +/- 2.9) were significantly lower than those of the normal subjects (P less than 0.001) and of the CH-patients (P less than 0.001). Considering the normal max-PFV to be in the range 20-33.1 cm/s (mean +/- 2 s.d. of the normal subjects, 95% confidence limits), max-PFV was reduced in 0/50 normal subjects, 1/58 CH-patients and 39/59 LC-patients (66.1% sensitivity; 98.2% specificity). In conclusion, the duplex-Doppler measurement of PFV is of great interest in the diagnostic study of patients with suspected chronic compensated liver disease and in the early diagnosis of cirrhosis. A low max-PFV is a reliable pointer to liver cirrhosis, whereas a normal max-PFV indicates a non-cirrhotic liver disease but is less probative. Each centre should standardize normal PFV values in order to establish their own threshold value for diagnosing liver cirrhosis.

In the last 35 years tumour markers (TM) have gained currency in clinical practice. However, in the light of indications by international guidelines, their use is often unjustified. Our aim was to quantify the use of some of the most common TM, assessing their appropriateness and their efficacy in an Internal Medicine Unit. METHODS: In the three Internal Medicine Units of the Department of Internal Medicine of Policlinico of Modena we have carried out a retrospective analysis of the assessment of the main TM (CEA, CA19.9, CA 125, CA 15.3, NSE). The analysis was divided into two distinct phases: (I) quantitative phase, in order to assess the scale of the problem in economical terms; (II) qualitative phase, in order to assess the efficacy of the tests and the appropriateness of their use. RESULTS: (I) At last one of the considered TM was requested in 5102 out of the 8253 admitted patients (62%) (period 2001-2003). The trend was similar in all three units examined. (II) The qualitative analyses revealed: (1) the most common motivation for their use (79%) was diagnostic, mostly prior to any other test; (2) a mere 5% of the requests were appropriate according to the international literature; and (3) TM showed a low positive predictive value when used for diagnosis in an unselected population such as that of an Internal Medicine unit. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study showed that TM determination represents an overall cost for Internal Medicine units and that there is a high inappropriateness in their use compared to what it is suggested by international guidelines. Though the TM is a low-cost test when used correctly, it seems an unnecessary expense if not adequately incorporated into the decision making process

No abstract

No abstract