Bradykinin or Acetylcholine as Vasodilators to Test Endothelial Venous Function in Healthy Subjects

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of endothelial function has been performed in the arterial bed, but recently evaluation within the venous system has also been explored. Endothelial function studies employ different drugs that act as endothelium-dependent vasodilatory response inductors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the endothelium-dependent venous vasodilator response mediated by either acetylcholine or bradykinin in healthy volunteers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Changes in vein diameter after phenylephrine-induced venoconstriction were measured to compare venodilation induced by acetylcholine or bradykinin (linear variable differential transformer dorsal hand vein technique). We studied 23 healthy volunteers; 31% were male, and the subject had a mean age of 33 ± 8 years and a mean body mass index of 23 ± 2 kg/m2. The maximum endothelium-dependent venodilation was similar for both drugs (p = 0.13), as well as the mean responses for each dose of both drugs (r = 0.96). The maximum responses to acetylcholine and bradykinin also had good agreement. CONCLUSION: There were no differences between acetylcholine and bradykinin as venodilators in this endothelial venous function investigation

Electrical stimulation and electromagnetic field use in patients with diabetic neuropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus, and pharmacological therapies are ineffective in many patients. Therefore, other treatment modalities should be considered, including electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields. OBJECTIVES: The research objective was to evaluate the effect of treatment with electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields on pain and sensitivity in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy compared with placebo or another intervention. METHOD: We searched the following electronic databases (from inception to April 2012): MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), LILACS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomized trials that compared electrical stimulation or electromagnetic fields with control groups in which the objective was to assess pain and sensitivity in patients with PDN. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. A random-effects model was used for the main analysis. RESULTS: The search retrieved 1336 articles, of which 12 studies were included. Reductions in the mean pain score were significantly greater in the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) group than in the placebo group [-0.44 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; I2: 0%)]. There was no improvement in pain relief when electromagnetic fields were compared with the control group [-0.69 (95% CI: -1.86 to 0.48; I2: 63%)]. CONCLUSIONS: We found that TENS improved pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy, while no such improvement was observed with the use of electromagnetic field treatment. Due to the methodological differences between the studies, a meta-analysis for the outcome of sensitivity could not be performed