Global diabetes mellitus prevalence is increasing. Metabolic disorders, such as type 2 diabetes, are associated with abnormal cardiac electrophysiology and increased risk of arrhythmias. Patients with both diabetes types (1 and 2) su fer from sudden cardac death (SCD) as a leading cause of mortality. Cardiovascular death is defined as death attributable to cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurring shortly within the symptom onset. This usually arises from life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias that lead to hemodynamic instability, and subsequent shock and death. A variety of pathways have been suggested that link hypoglycaemia to the development of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including blood coagulation abnormalities, in lammation, endothelial dysfunction and sympathoadrenal responses. We propose a four-step framework for the optimisation of SCD risk factors in diabetic patients, to include: raising awareness to in luence health behaviour, provision of screening programs, use of technology within educational programs to improve patient engagement and e fective provision of diabetic community teams.
Objectives Sternal instability and wound infections are major causes of morbidity following cardiac surgery, which is further amplified in high risk patients that include diabetics and patients with high body mass index (BMI). We compare the different outcomes of different sternal wire closure techniques following median sternotomy for cardiac surgery in obese patients. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to July 2020 to identify all published data comparing single wire sternal closure to either double wire or figure‐of‐8 techniques following median sternotomy for cardiac surgery in obese patients, defined as a BMI ≥ 30. Results Eight studies met the final inclusion criteria; single wire versus double wire sternal closure (n = 2) and single wire versus figure‐of‐8 wire closure (n = 6). Higher rate of sternal instability was noted in single wire versus double wire closure (22/150 [14.7%] patients vs. 6/150 [4%] patients, p = 0.003, odd ratio [OR] 0.25 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10–0.63]). Similarly, sternal instability was higher in single wire vs figure‐of‐8 wire closure technique (33/2422 [1.3%] vs. 11/8035 [0.1%], p = 0.04 OR 0.30 [95% CI, 0.09–0.96]), respectively. Conclusion There is benefit in the use of either double or figure‐of‐8 sternal wire closure techniques over single wire closure in terms of sternal instability. However, as the studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to provide a solid evidence base for choosing the optimal sternal closure technique in this high risk group of patients.
Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) poses considerable diagnostic challenges. Although late night salivary cortisol (LNSC) is recommended as a first line screening investigation, it remains the least widely used test in many countries. The combined measurement of LNSC and late-night salivary cortisone (LNS cortisone) has shown to further improve diagnostic accuracy1. We present a retrospective study in a tertiary referral centre comparing LNSC, LNS cortisone, overnight dexamethasone suppression test, low dose dexamethasone suppression test and 24-hour urinary free cortisol results of patients investigated for CS. Patients were categorised into those who had CS (21 patients) and those who did not (33 patients). LNSC had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 91%. LNS cortisone had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 86%. With an optimal cut-off for LNS cortisone of >14.5 nmol/l the sensitivity was 95.2%, and the specificity was 100% with an area under the curve of 0.997, for diagnosing CS. Saliva collection is non-invasive and can be carried out at home. We therefore advocate simultaneous measurement of LNSC and LNS cortisone as the first-line screening test to evaluate patients with suspected CS.
Aim Sternal instability and wound infections are a major cause of morbidity following cardiac surgery, which is further amplified in high-risk patients that include diabetics and patients with high BMI. We compare the different outcomes of different sternal wire closure techniques following median sternotomy for cardiac surgery in obese patients Method A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to July 2020 to identify all published data comparing single wire sternal closure to either double wire or figure-of-8 techniques following median sternotomy for cardiac surgery in obese patients, defined as a BMI ≥ 30. Results Eight studies met the final inclusion criteria; single wire versus double wire sternal closure (n = 2) and single wire versus figure-of-8 wire closure (n = 6). Higher rate of sternal instability was noted in single wire vs double wire closure (22/150 (14.7%) patients vs 6/150 (4%) patients, p = 0.003, OR 0.25 [95% CI 0.10-0.63]). Similarly, sternal instability was higher in single wire vs figure-of-8 wire closure technique (33/2422 (1.3%) vs 11/8035 (0.1%), p = 0.04 OR 0.30 [95% CI, 0.09-0.96]) respectively. Conclusions There is benefit in the use of either double or figure-of-8 sternal wire closure techniques over single wire closure in terms of sternal instability. However, as the studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to provide a solid evidence base for choosing the optimal sternal closure technique in this high-risk group of patients.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.