Differences in local and systemic inflammatory markers in patients with obstructive airways disease.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are characterised by airway and systemic inflammation, but little is known about differences and similarities in inflammatory markers in patients with obstructive airways disease.In 210 adult patients presenting to their general practitioners with symptoms suggestive of obstructive airways disease, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)), blood eosinophils, and serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and IgE were measured.hs-CRP levels were increased in COPD patients (p=0.009), whereas FE(NO), IgE, and eosinophils were increased in patients with asthma (p=0.009, p=0.041, and p=0.009, respectively). In the ROC analysis, hs-CRP had the largest area under the curve (AUC=0.651; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.552 to 0.749), with a specifity of 83% and a sensitivity of 42% for the diagnosis of COPD. FE(NO) was the most accurate marker in the diagnosis of asthma (AUC=0.618; 95% CI 0.529 to 0.706). Serum hs-CRP levels correlated with the number of smoking pack-years (r=0.218, p=0.001) and inversely with lung function parameters.Levels of serum hs-CRP, IgE, blood eosinophils, and FE(NO) identify distinct aspects of local and systemic inflammation in patients with obstructive airways disease. This might help to differentiate between asthma and COPD in primary care patients when spirometry is not available

[Diagnostic value of peak flow variability in patients with suspected diagnosis of bronchial asthma in general practice]

BACKGROUND: National guidelines advice self measurement of peak flow variability as a diagnostic tool for asthma. However, its actual value for this purpose remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 219 persons were recruited by 14 general practitioners after they presented themselves for the first time with symptoms suspicious of obstructive airway disease. They were asked to measure and record peak expiratory flow (PEF) three times daily for two weeks. PEF variability was calculated with three different indices and compared to the post bronchodilator FEV (1) response or methacholine inhalation challenge. RESULTS: 132 (60.3 %) patients completed the peak flow diary. 60 (45.5 %) of them were found to have asthma. But the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PEF variability were low. The number of daily measurements did not enhance diagnostic accuracy. Variation of the cut-off value (PEF variability > 25 %) increased the probability for asthma to 77.8 %. However, only one out of six had PEF variability > 25 %. None of the three methods sufficed to rule out asthma. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of PEF variability was low. Thus, in case of inconclusive spirometric results in general practice bronchial provocation remains an essential tool for diagnosing asthma. Diagnostic algorithms, as recommended by national guidelines, should be reconsidered in relation to the diagnostic value of peak flow variability

Target balloon-assisted antegrade and retrograde use of re-entry catheters in complex chronic total occlusions

Purpose, Retrograde recanalizations have gained increasing recognition in complex arterial occlusive disease. Re-entry devices are a well described adjunct for antegrade recanalizations. We present our experience with target balloon-assisted antegrade and retrograde recanalizations using re-entry devices in challenging chronic total occlusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report data from a retrospective multicenter registry. Eligibility criteria included either antegrade or retrograde use of the OutbackTM or GoBackTM re-entry catheter in combination with a balloon as a target to accomplish wire passage, when conventional antegrade and retrograde recanalization attempts had been unsuccessful. Procedural outcomes included technical success (defined as wire passage though the occlusion and delivery of adjunctive therapy with <30% residual stenosis at final angiogram), safety (periprocedural complications, e.g., bleeding, vessel injury, or occlusion of the artery at the re-entry site, and distal embolizations), and clinical outcome (amputation-free survival and freedom from target lesion revascularization after 12-months follow-up). RESULTS: Thirty-six consecutive patients underwent target balloon-assisted recanalization attempts. Fourteen (39 %) patients had a history of open vascular surgery in the index limb. Fifteen patients were claudications (Rutherford Class 2 or 3, 21 presented with chronic limb threatening limb ischemia (Rutherford Class 4 to 6). The locations of the occlusive lesions were as follows: iliac arteries in 3 cases, femoropopliteal artery in 39 cases, and in below-the-knee arteries in 12 cases. In 15 cases, recanalization was attempted in multilevel occlusions. Retrograde access was attempted in 1 case in the common femoral artery, in the femoropopliteal segment in 10 cases, in below-the-knee arteries in 23 cases, and finally in 2 patients via the brachial artery. In 10 cases, the re-entry devices were inserted via the retrograde access site. Technical success was achieved in 34 (94 %) patients. There were 3 periprocedural complications, none directly related to the target balloon-assisted re-entry maneuver. Amputation-free survival was 87.8 % and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 86.6 % after 12-months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Target balloon-assisted use of re-entry devices in chronic total occlusions provides an effective and safe endovascular adjunct, when conventional antegrade and retrograde recanalization attempts have failed