Acute mountain sickness.

Acute mountain sickness (AMS) is a clinical syndrome occurring in otherwise healthy normal individuals who ascend rapidly to high altitude. Symptoms develop over a period ofa few hours or days. The usual symptoms include headache, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, lethargy, unsteadiness of gait, undue dyspnoea on moderate exertion and interrupted sleep. AMS is unrelated to physical fitness, sex or age except that young children over two years of age are unduly susceptible. One of the striking features ofAMS is the wide variation in individual susceptibility which is to some extent consistent. Some subjects never experience symptoms at any altitude while others have repeated attacks on ascending to quite modest altitudes. Rapid ascent to altitudes of 2500 to 3000m will produce symptoms in some subjects while after ascent over 23 days to 5000m most subjects will be affected, some to a marked degree. In general, the more rapid the ascent, the higher the altitude reached and the greater the physical exertion involved, the more severe AMS will be. Ifthe subjects stay at the altitude reached there is a tendency for acclimatization to occur and symptoms to remit over 1-7 days

Clinical Correlates of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Phenotypes at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Turkey

Background/Aims: Hypertension and its complications are major public health issues worldwide due to their association with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite significant progress in health, the prevalence of hypertension is increasing. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is becoming increasingly important for the management of hypertension. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical and laboratory correlates of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) phenotypes at a tertiary care hospital in Turkey. Methods: The characteristics of 1053 patients were retrospectively obtained from the hospital database. Hypertension was defined as patients with office blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg and/or previously diagnosed hypertension and/or the use of antihypertensive medication. According to the office BP and ABPM results patients were identified namely: (1) sustained normotensive (SNT) patients (both office BP and ABPM were normal), (2) sustained hypertensive (SHT) patients (both office BP and ABPM were high), (3) masked hypertensive (MHT) patients (office BP were normal, but ABPM were high), (4) white coat hypertensive (WCHT) patients (office BP were above limits, but ABPM were normal). Results: A total of 1053 patients were included to the study (female/male: 608/445 and mean age 55 ± 15 years). The mean age of patients with hypertension was significantly higher than without hypertension (p< 0.0001). Hypertension was more frequent in females (p=0.009). The rates of history of diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperlipidemia (HL), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were higher in patients with hypertension (p< 0.0001). Among patients with hypertension (n=853, 81%), ABPM results showed that 388 (45%) of patients had SHT, 92 (11%) had MHT, and 144 (17%) had WCHT, whereas 229 (27%) had SNT. Patients with MHT were significantly older than patients with SNT (p=0.025). The prevalence of SHT was higher in men than in women, whereas the prevalence of WCHT was higher in women than in men (p< 0.0001). There was no significant difference between 4 groups with regard to body mass index (p=0.142), a history of DM (p=0.189) and smoking status (self-reported) (p=0.306). Patients with SHT had the highest prevalence of history of hypertension, HL and CKD (p< 0.0001). Among patients without hypertension, 26 (13%) of patients had MHT and none of those patients was on antihypertensive treatment. Conclusion: Potential usages of ABPM in Turkey may include screening of high risk individuals who have traditional cardiovascular risk factors. It also provides clinicians valuable information on abnormal ABP phenotypes. Future studies are needed to clarify the risk factors of different ABP phenotypes and to evaluate the role of ABPM on detection and control of hypertension

Non-Diabetic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: Prevalence, Clinical Predictors and Outcomes

Background/Aims: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is one of the most frequent microvascular complications of diabetes and is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease worldwide. In patients with diabetes, non-diabetic kidney disease (NDKD) can also occur. NDKD can be either alone or superimposed with the DKD. In this study, we aimed to investigate the utility of kidney biopsy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the predictability of diagnosing DKD versus NDKD from clinical and laboratory data. We also evaluated the prevalence and etiology of NDKD in patients with T2DM. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed type 2 diabetic patients who had kidney biopsy in the last 10 years for diagnosing possible NDKD in our center. In all patients kidney biopsies were performed because of atypical clinical features and biopsy samples were examined by light and immunofluorescence microscopy. Clinical parameters, laboratory workup and office blood pressures were recorded for each patient at the time of biopsy. Results: Eight patients were excluded due to missing data. A total of 48 patients (female/male: 26/22 and mean age: 59±8 years) were included in the study. According to the biopsy findings, 24 (50%) patients had NDKD alone, 20 (41.7%) had DKD alone and 4 (8.3%) had coexisting DKD and NDKD. The most common NDKD diagnoses were membranous nephropathy (29.2%), tubulointerstitial nephritis (20.8%) and IgA nephropathy (12.5%). There were no significant differences in three groups with respect to the duration of diabetes, proteinuria, hematuria and glycated hemoglobin A1c levels. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) was the most significant finding, which was associated with DKD. Positive and negative predictive values of DR for DKD were 88 and 81%, respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated a high prevalence of NDKD in patients with T2DM. The absence of DR strongly predicted NDKD. Clinical decision alone can lead to wrong diagnosis and delay in appropriate therapy. Clinicians should consider the kidney biopsy more liberally when there is uncertainty on the exact etiology of the kidney disease. However, prospective multicenter studies are needed to clarify the prognosis and outcomes of patients with diabetics