No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Obesity and sleep disturbances are common conditions in modern societies and accumulating evidence support a close bidirectional causal relationship between these two conditions. Indeed, from one side sleep loss seems to affect energy intake and expenditure through its direct effects on hormone-mediated sensations of satiety and hunger and through the influence on hedonic and psychological aspects of food consumption. Sleep deprived patients have been shown to experiment excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and tiredness that, in a vicious circle, enhances physical inactivity and weight gain. On the other side, obesity is a well-known risk factor for several sleep disorders. This narrative review will discuss the main pathophysiological mechanisms that link sleep loss to obesity and metabolic syndrome with particular attention to the three most common sleep disorders (insomnia, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, restless leg syndrome).

BackgroundThe Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) has been proposed for syncope risk stratification in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study is to perform an external multicenter validation of the CSRS and to compare it with clinical judgement.MethodsUsing patients previously included in the SyMoNE database, we enrolled subjects older than 18 years who presented reporting syncope at the ED. For each patient, we estimated the CSRS and recorded the physician judgement on the patients’ risk of adverse events. We performed a 30-day follow-up.ResultsFrom 1 September 2015 to 28 February 2017, we enrolled 345 patients; the median age was 71 years (IQR 51–81), 174 (50%) were men and 29% were hospitalised. Serious adverse events occurred in 43 (12%) of the patients within 30 days. The area under the curve of the CSRS and clinical judgement was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.81) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.74), respectively. The risk of adverse events of patients at low risk according to the CSRS and clinical judgement was 6.7% and 2%, with a sensitivity of 70% (95% CI 54% to 83%) and 95% (95% CI 84% to 99%), respectively.ConclusionThis study represents the first validation analysis of CSRS outside Canada. The overall predictive accuracy of the CSRS is similar to the clinical judgement. However, patients at low risk according to clinical judgement had a lower incidence of adverse events as compared with patients at low risk according to the CSRS. Further studies showing that the adoption of the CSRS improve patients’ outcomes is warranted before its widespread implementation.

Nursing triage was characterised by a low predictive accuracy in identifying high-risk individuals.