Βιβλιοκρισία:G. THEOTOKIS, Byzantine Military Tactics in Syria and Mesopotamia in the 10th Century. A Comparative Study, Edinburgh 2018

Βιβλιοκρισία G. Theotokis, Byzantine Military Tactics in Syria and Mesopotamia in the 10th Century. A Comparative Study, Edinburgh 2018, pp. 348. ISBN 978-1-47-443103-3

Cytokines in Pericardial Effusion of Patients with Inflammatory Pericardial Disease

Background. The role of inflammatory and angiogenic cytokines in patients with inflammatory pericardial effusion still remains uncertain. Methods. We assessed pericardial and serum levels of VEGF, bFGF, IL-1β and TNF-α by ELISA in patients with inflammatory pericardial effusion (PE) of autoreactive (n = 22) and viral (n = 11) origin, and for control in pericardial fluid (PF) and serum (n = 26) of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Results. VEGF levels were significantly higher in patients with autoreactive and viral PE than in patients with CAD in both PE (P = 0, 006 for autoreactive and P < 0, 001 for viral PE) and serum (P < 0, 001 for autoreactive and P < 0, 001 for viral PE). Pericardial bFGF levels were higher compared to serum levels in patients with inflammatory PE and patients with CAD (P ≤ 0, 001 for CAD; P ≤ 0, 001 for autoreactive PE; P = 0, 005 for viral PE). Pericardial VEGF levels correlated positively with markers of pericardial inflammation, whereas pericardial bFGF levels showed a negative correlation. IL-1β and TNF-α were detectable only in few PE and serum samples. Conclusions. VEGF and bFGF levels in pericardial effusion are elevated in patients with inflammatory PE. It is thus possible that VEGF and bFGF participate in the pathogenesis of inflammatory pericardial disease

Heartburn or angina? Differentiating gastrointestinal disease in primary care patients presenting with chest pain: a cross sectional diagnostic study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastrointestinal (GI) disease is one of the leading aetiologies of chest pain in a primary care setting. The aims of the study are to describe clinical characteristics of GI disease causing chest pain and to provide criteria for clinical diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of each patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out the diagnosis of GI disease and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GI disease was diagnosed in 5.8% and GERD in 3.5% of all patients. Most patients localised the pain retrosternal (71.8% for GI disease and 83.3% for GERD). Pain worse with food intake and retrosternal pain radiation were associated positively with both GI disease and GERD; retrosternal pain localisation, vomiting, burning pain, epigastric pain and an average pain episode < 1 hour were associated positively only with GI disease. Negative associations were found for localized muscle tension (GI disease and GERD) and pain getting worse on exercise, breathing, movement and pain location on left side (only GI disease).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study broadens the knowledge about the diagnostic accuracy of selected signs and symptoms for GI disease and GERD and provides criteria for primary care practitioners in rational diagnosis.</p

Accuracy of General Practitioners’ Assessment of Chest Pain Patients for Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care: Cross-sectional Study with Follow-up

Aim To estimate how accurately general practitioners’ (GP) assessed the probability of coronary heart disease in patients presenting with chest pain and analyze the patient management decisions taken as a result. Methods During 2005 and 2006, the cross-sectional diagnostic study with a delayed-type reference standard included 74 GPs in the German state of Hesse, who enrolled 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. GPs recorded symptoms and findings for each patient on a report form. Patients and GPs were contacted 6 weeks and 6 months after the patients’ visit to the GP. Data on chest complaints, investigations, hospitalization, and medication were reviewed by an independent panel, with coronary heart disease being the reference condition. Diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of the GPs’ diagnoses were calculated. Results GPs diagnosed coronary heart disease with the sensitivity of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-75) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 87-91), and acute coronary syndrome with the sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36-64) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). They assumed coronary heart disease in 245 patients, 41 (17%) of whom were referred to the hospital, 77 (31%) to a cardiologist, and 162 (66%) to electrocardiogram testing. Conclusions GPs’ evaluation of chest pain patients, based on symptoms and signs alone, was not sufficiently accurate for diagnosing or excluding coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndrome

Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p = 0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p = 0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p = 0.01). For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men. In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient's gender.</p

Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p

Anticardiac Antibodies in Patients with Chronic Pericardial Effusion

Objectives. Chronic pericardial effusion may be challenging in terms of diagnosis and treatment. Specific laboratory parameters predicting the frequency and severity of recurrences after initial drainage of pericardial effusion are lacking. Materials and Methods. Pericardial fluid (PF) and serum (SE) samples from 30 patients with chronic pericardial effusion (PE) who underwent pericardiocentesis and pericardioscopically guided pericardial biopsy were compared with SE and PF samples from 26 control patients. The levels of antimyolemmal (AMLA) and antifibrillary antibodies (AFA) in PE and SE from patients with pericardial effusion as well as PF and SE from controls were determined and compared. Results. AMLAs and AFAs in PF and SE were significantly higher in patients with chronic pericardial effusion than in the control group (AMLAs: p = 0,01 for PF and p = 0,004 for serum; AFAs: p < 0,001 for PF and p = 0,003 for serum). Patients with recurrence of PE within 3 months after pericardiocentesis had significantly higher levels of AMLAs in SE (p = 0,029) than patients without recurrence of PE. Conclusions. The identification of elevated anticardiac antibodies in PE and SE indicates increased immunological reactivity in chronic pericardial effusion. High titer serum levels of AMLAs also correlate with recurrence of pericardial effusion

Impella support following emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and cardiogenic shock

Background: To investigate the feasibility and outcomes of Impella 2.5 support in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS), who underwent emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients with severe AS and CS who underwent Impella 2.5 support following emergency BAV with or without subsequent PCI. Outcome data included 30-day outcomes, periprocedural as well as throughout the circulatory support period complications. Eight patients with severe AS and CS were identified. Impella 2.5 implantation was successful following emergency BAV in all patients attempted. Additional PCI was performed in four patients. No periprocedural deaths or periprocedural neurologic events occurred. Mean procedure time was 125.9 min (range 64-210 min). Mortality at 30 days was 50%. Conclusions: Impella 2.5 can be used as hemodynamic support in patients with severe AS and CS following emergency percutaneous BAV and may help to improve tolerability of PCI in these high-risk patients. (C) 2018 Hellenic Society of Cardiology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V