Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011: current status in 37 ESC countries

Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We conducted this study to evaluate the contemporary status on the use and type of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries. Methods and results A cross-sectional descriptive study based on aggregated country-level data on the use of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI during 2010 or 2011. Thirty-seven ESC countries were able to provide data from existing national or regional registries. In countries where no such registries exist, data were based on best expert estimates. Data were collected on the use of STEMI reperfusion treatment and mortality, the numbers of cardiologists, and the availability of PPCI facilities in each country. Our survey provides a brief data summary of the degree of variation in reperfusion therapy across Europe. The number of PPCI procedures varied between countries, ranging from 23 to 884 per million inhabitants. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis were the dominant reperfusion strategy in 33 and 4 countries, respectively. The mean population served by a single PPCI centre with a 24-h service 7 days a week ranged from 31 300 inhabitants per centre to 6 533 000 inhabitants per centre. Twenty-seven of the total 37 countries participated in a former survey from 2007, and major increases in PPCI utilization were observed in 13 of these countries. Conclusion Large variations in reperfusion treatment are still present across Europe. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe reported that a substantial number of STEMI patients are not receiving any reperfusion therapy. Implementation of the best reperfusion therapy as recommended in the guidelines should be encourage

Localization of a Susceptibility Gene for Type 2 Diabetes to Chromosome 5q34–q35.2

We report a genomewide linkage study of type 2 diabetes (T2D [MIM 125853]) in the Icelandic population. A list of type 2 diabetics was cross-matched with a computerized genealogical database clustering 763 type 2 diabetics into 227 families. The diabetic patients and their relatives were genotyped with 906 microsatellite markers. A nonparametric multipoint linkage analysis yielded linkage to 5q34–q35.2 (LOD = 2.90, P=1.29×10(-4)) in all diabetics. Since obesity, here defined as body mass index (BMI) ⩾30 kg/m(2), is a key risk factor for the development of T2D, we studied the data either independently of BMI or by stratifying the patient group as obese (BMI ⩾30) or nonobese (BMI <30). A nonparametric multipoint linkage analysis yielded linkage to 5q34–q35.2 (LOD = 3.64, P=2.12×10(-5)) in the nonobese diabetics. No linkage was observed in this region for the obese diabetics. Linkage analysis conditioning on maternal transmission to the nonobese diabetics resulted in a LOD score of 3.48 (P=3.12×10(-5)) in the same region, whereas conditioning on paternal transmission led to a substantial drop in the LOD score. Finally, we observed potential interactions between the 5q locus and two T2D susceptibility loci, previously mapped in other populations

Large-scale cross-societal examination of real- and minimal-group biases

Biases in favor of culturally prevalent social ingroups are ubiquitous, but random assignment to arbitrary experimentally created social groups is also sufficient to create ingroup biases (i.e., the minimal group effect; MGE). The extent to which ingroup bias arises from specific social contexts versus more general psychological tendencies remains unclear. This registered report focuses on three questions. First, how culturally prevalent is the MGE? Second, how do critical cultural and individual factors moderate its strength? Third, does the MGE meaningfully relate to culturally salient real-world ingroup biases? We compare the MGE to bias in favor of a family member (first cousin) and a national ingroup member. We propose to recruit a sample of &amp;gt; 200 participants in each of &amp;gt; 50 nations to examine these questions and advance our understanding of the psychological foundations and cultural prevalence of ingroup bias