Aneurysm of left atrial appendage is rare and often an incidental diagnosis during echocardiography. It is important to recognize this entity since it is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by predisposing to atrial tachyarrhythmia and thromboembolism. Surgical resection is the standard of treatment in the current literature. Medical management is directed toward the treatment of thromboembolism and atrial tachyarrhythmia.
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of gatifloxacin versus cefixime in the treatment of uncomplicated culture positive enteric fever.DesignA randomized, open-label, active control trial with two parallel arms.SettingEmergency Room and Outpatient Clinics in Patan Hospital, Lagankhel, Lalitpur, Nepal.ParticipantsPatients with clinically diagnosed uncomplicated enteric fever meeting the inclusion criteria.InterventionsPatients were allocated to receive one of two drugs, Gatifloxacin or Cefixime. The dosages used were Gatifloxacin 10 mg/kg, given once daily for 7 days, or Cefixime 20 mg/kg/day given in two divided doses for 7 days.Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was fever clearance time. The secondary outcome measure was overall treatment failure (acute treatment failure and relapse).ResultsRandomization was carried out in 390 patients before enrollment was suspended on the advice of the independent data safety monitoring board due to significant differences in both primary and secondary outcome measures in the two arms and the attainment of a priori defined endpoints. Median (95% confidence interval) fever clearance times were 92 hours (84–114 hours) for gatifloxacin recipients and 138 hours (105–164 hours) for cefixime-treated patients (Hazard Ratio[95%CI] = 2.171 [1.545–3.051], p<0.0001). 19 out of 70 (27%) patients who completed the 7 day trial had acute clinical failure in the cefixime group as compared to 1 out of 88 patients (1%) in gatifloxacin group(Odds Ratio [95%CI] = 0.031 [0.004 – 0.237], p<0.001). Overall treatment failure patients (relapsed patients plus acute treatment failure patients plus death) numbered 29. They were determined to be (95% confidence interval) 37.6 % (27.14%–50.2%) in the cefixime group and 3.5% (2.2%–11.5%) in the gatifloxacin group (HR[95%CI] = 0.084 [0.025–0.280], p<0.0001). There was one death in the cefixime group.ConclusionsBased on this study, gatifloxacin is a better treatment for uncomplicated enteric fever as compared to cefixime.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN75784880
ObjectiveTo determine the association between serum vitamin D level and left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction.BackgroundVitamin D deficiency has been shown in observational and prospective studies to be associated with cardiovascular diseases including coronary artery disease, LV hypertrophy and systolic heart failure. Even though diastolic LV dysfunction is an early manifestation of cardiac disease, there is no study that examines whether a deficiency of vitamin D is associated with LV diastolic dysfunction.MethodA retrospective observational review of 1011 patients (679 women) was conducted to examine if low 25-OH-vitamin D levels were associated with LV diastolic dysfunction.ResultsAll the LV diastolic dysfunction parameters: left atrial volume index, E/e', e' velocity, LV mass index and deceleration time were not significantly different between patients with 25-OH vitamin D level ≤20 ng/mL vs 25-OH vitamin D level >20 ng/mL.ConclusionsDespite growing medical literature suggesting vitamin D deficiency is associated with cardiovascular disease, in this present study there is no significant association of vitamin D levels and LV diastolic performance, including left atrial volume index.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.