To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in participants with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry throughout the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSDPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire (MNSIQ) in adults with ‡5 years of type 1 diabetes duration. A score of ‡4 defined DPN. Associations of demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors with DPN were assessed. RESULTSAmong 5,936 T1D Exchange participants (mean 6 SD age 39 6 18 years, median type 1 diabetes duration 18 years [interquartile range 11, 31], 55% female, 88% non-Hispanic white, mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ] 8.1 6 1.6% [65.3 6 17.5 mmol/mol]), DPN prevalence was 11%. Compared with those without DPN, DPN participants were older, had higher HbA 1c , had longer duration of diabetes, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to have a college education and private insurance (all P < 0.001). DPN participants also were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P < 0.001), worse CVD risk factors of smoking (P 5 0.008), hypertriglyceridemia (P 5 0.002), higher BMI (P 5 0.009), retinopathy (P 5 0.004), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (P 5 0.02), and Charcot neuroarthropathy (P 5 0.002). There were no differences in insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor use, although DPN participants were more likely to have had severe hypoglycemia (P 5 0.04) and/or diabetic ketoacidosis (P < 0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONSThe prevalence of DPN in this national cohort with type 1 diabetes is lower than in prior published reports but is reflective of current clinical care practices. These data also highlight that nonglycemic risk factors, such as CVD risk factors, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower socioeconomic status, may also play a role in DPN development.Diabetic neuropathy is a prevalent complication in patients with diabetes and a major cause of morbidity and mortality (1). Among the various forms of diabetic neuropathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DPN) and diabetic autonomic neuropathies are by far the most studied (1).
Introduction:The bispectral index (BIS) is an attractive approach for monitoring level of consciousness in critically ill patients, particularly during paralysis, when commonly used sedation scales cannot be used.Objectives: As a first step toward establishing the utility of BIS during paralysis, this review examines the strength of correlation between BIS and clinical sedation scales in a broad population of non-paralyzed, critically ill adults. Methods:We included studies evaluating the strength of correlation between concurrent assessments of BIS and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), or Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) in critically ill adult patients.Studies involving assessment of depth sedation periperative or procedural time periods, and those reporting BIS and sedation scale assessments conducted >5 min apart or while neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) were administered, were excluded.Data were abstracted on sedation scale, correlation coefficients, setting, patient characteristics, and BIS assessment characteristics that could impact the quality of the studies.Results: Twenty-four studies which enrolled 1235 patients met inclusion criteria. The correlation between BIS and RASS, RSS, and SAS overall was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.74, Ƭ 2 = 0.06 I 2 = 71.26%). Subgroup analysis by sedation scale indicated that the correlation between BIS and RASS, RSS, and SAS were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.73, Ƭ 2 = 0.01 I 2 = 30.20%), 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69-0.82, Ƭ 2 = 0.04 I 2 = 67.15%), and 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.63, Ƭ 2 = 0.01 I 2 = 26.59%), respectively. Factors associated with significant heterogeneity included comparator clinical sedation scale, neurologic injury, and the type of intensive care unit (ICU) population.Conclusions: BIS demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with clinical sedation scales in adult ICU patients, providing preliminary evidence for the validity of BIS as a measure of sedation intensity when clinical scales cannot be used. Future studies should determine whether BIS monitoring is safe and effective in improving outcomes in patients receiving NMBA treatment.
Purpose Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to reduce surgical morbidity and length of stay across various procedures. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the literature for best practices of ERAS elements in abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), to determine if there is sufficient evidence to create best practice guidelines for this procedure. Materials and Methods Following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis (PRISMA) statement, we performed a review using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Eligible articles contained ERAS components and postoperative outcomes of ASC published in English since 1997. Thirty‐five full‐text articles were selected for final qualitative analysis. Results Poor functional status before ASC was associated with a longer length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic ASC was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay, with no difference between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Epidural analgesia in addition to spinal anesthesia lowered levels of pain throughout the postoperative stay in laparoscopic ASC. A multimodal bowel regimen shortened time to first bowel movement compared to a single agent regimen. Removing a Foley catheter may lead to sooner first spontaneous void but may result in higher rates of urinary retention and urinary tract infection. Studies investigating preoperative bowel preparation, preanesthesia medication, and multidose antimicrobial prophylaxis did not show significant benefit. Conclusions Best practices for ASC can be developed based on current findings from the literature and extrapolation of evidence from other surgeries where ASC‐specific elements are missing, with the ability to modify the pathways as new data become available.
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.