Ethnicity and thrombolysis in ischemic stroke: a hospital based study in Amsterdam

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ethnic differences have been reported with regard to several medical therapies. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between ethnicity and thrombolysis in stroke patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective single-centre study. Patients admitted with an ischemic stroke between 2003 and 2008 were included. Ethnicity was determined by self-identification and stratified into white and non-white (all other ethnicities). The main outcome measure was the difference in thrombolysis rate between white and non-white patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify potential confounders of the relation between ethnicity and thrombolysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>510 patients were included, 392 (77%) white and 118 (23%) non-white. Non-white patients were younger (median 69 vs. 60 years, p < 0.001), had a higher blood pressure at admission (median systolic 150 vs. 160 mmHg, p = 0.02) and a lower stroke severity (median NIHSS 5 vs. 4, p = 0.04). Non-white patients were significantly less often treated with thrombolysis compared to white patients (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.71), which was partly explained by a later arrival at the hospital. After adjustment for potential confounders (late arrival, age, blood pressure above upper limit for thrombolysis, and oral anticoagulation use), a trend towards a lower thrombolysis rate in non-whites remained (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.16).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Non-white stroke patients less often received thrombolysis than white patients, partly as a result of a delay in presentation. In this single centre study, potential bias due to hospital differences or insurance status could be ruled out as a cause. The magnitude of the difference is worrisome and requires further investigation. Modifiable causes, such as patient delay, awareness of stroke symptoms, language barriers and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, should be addressed specifically in these ethnic groups in future stroke campaigns.</p

The role of the carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin, in protecting against age-related macular degeneration: A review based on controversial evidence

PURPOSE: A review of the role of the carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin, and their function in altering the pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Medline and Embase search. RESULTS: Recent evidence introduces the possibility that lutein and zeaxanthin, carotenoids found in a variety of fruits and vegetables may protect against the common eye disease of macular degeneration. This potential and the lack to slow the progression of macular degeneration, has fueled high public interest in the health benefits of these carotenoids and prompted their inclusion in various supplements. The body of evidence supporting a role in this disease ranges from basic studies in experimental animals to various other clinical and epidemiological studies. Whilst some epidemiological studies suggest a beneficial role for carotenoids in the prevention of AMD, others are found to be unrelated to it. Results of some clinical studies indicate that the risk for AMD is reduced when levels of the carotenoids are elevated in the serum or diet, but this correlation is not observed in other studies. Published data concerning the toxicity of the carotenoids or the optimum dosage of these supplements is lacking. CONCLUSION: An intake of dietary supplied nutrients rich in the carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin, appears to be beneficial in protecting retinal tissues, but this is not proven. Until scientifically sound knowledge is available we recommend for patients judged to be at risk for AMD to: alter their diet to more dark green leafy vegetables, wear UV protective lenses and a hat when outdoors. Future investigations on the role of nutrition, light exposure, genetics, and combinations of photodynamic therapy with intravitreal steroid (triamcinolone-acetonide) injections hold potential for future treatment possibilities

Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

Meeting the UK driving vision standards with reduced contrast sensitivity

Purpose: The visual standard to hold a UK driver's license since 2012 includes visual acuity (VA) measured indoors and the ability to read a car numberplate outdoors. Individuals with reduced contrast sensitivity may have greater visual difficulties outdoors. The agreement between the two tests in the presence of combined reduction in contrast sensitivity and VA was investigated. Methods: Simulation glasses (‘sim-specs’) were used to reduce both high-contrast VA and contrast sensitivity (CS). Following evaluation of the influence of sim-specs on VA and CS, levels 2 to 4 were chosen to give a range of VAs on either side of the driving standard of 6/12. Sixty-two participants wearing sim-specs then had VA tested with Snellen and ETDRS charts indoors, and ability to read a numberplate assessed outdoors as per DVLA regulations. Results: Sim-specs reduced VA and CS by ~0.10 logMAR VA per 0.10 logCS. The sensitivity of test chart VA <6/12 to correctly predict failure on the numberplate was 61% for Snellen and 56% for ETDRS. Conclusion: False-negative and -positive rates were higher than in a previous study with uncorrected refractive error only. Reduced CS increased the lack of agreement between the two driving vision standards, which likely occurs as the VA test is performed indoors and the numberplate test outdoors. The increased likelihood of failing the numberplate test even though VA is 6/12 or better needs to be considered when advising patients on fitness to drive who have ocular disease such as cataract

Insurance and Quality of Care for Adults with Acute Asthma

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between health care insurance and quality of medical care remains incompletely studied. We sought to determine whether type of patient insurance is related to quality of care and subsequent outcomes for patients who arrive in the emergency department (ED) for acute asthma. DESIGN: Using prospectively collected data from the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration, we compared measures of quality of pre-ED care, acute severity, and short-term outcomes across 4 insurance categories: managed care, indemnity, Medicaid, and uninsured. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Emergency departments at 57 academic medical centers enrolled 1,019 adults with acute asthma. RESULTS: Patients with managed care ranked first and uninsured patients ranked last on all 7 unadjusted quality measures. After controlling for covariates, uninsured patients had significantly lower quality of care than indemnity patients for 5 of 7 measures and had lower initial peak expiratory flow rates than indemnity insured patients. Patients with managed care insurance were more likely than indemnity-insured patients to identify a primary care physician and report using inhaled steroids in the month prior to arrival in the ED. Patients with Medicaid insurance were more likely than indemnity-insured patients to use the ED as their usual source of care for problems with asthma. We found no differences in patient outcomes among the insurance categories we studied. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured patients had consistently poorer quality of care and than insured patients. Despite differences in indicators of quality of care between types of insurance, we found no differences in short-term patient outcomes by type of insurance