Depression and diabetes mellitus

O diabetes mellitus possui elevada prevalência, acometendo cerca de 7% da população brasileira. Em torno de 20% a 30% dos pacientes com diabetes apresentam depressão. A depressão pode atuar como um fator de risco para o desenvolvimento do diabetes, piorar seus sintomas e interferir com o autocuidado dos pacientes. Quando não tratada adequadamente, a depressão nesses pacientes tende a evoluir com elevada taxa de recorrência. Entre os tratamentos disponíveis, encontramos na literatura um benefício da psicoterapia, cognitiva ou cognitivo-comportamental, para melhora dos sintomas depressivos, mas sem evidência de um benefício no controle glicêmico. Os antidepressivos tricíclicos, em especial os com maior ação noradrenérgica, e os inibidores da monoaminoxidase (IMAOs) tendem a aumentar os níveis glicêmicos. A bupropiona não interfere na glicemia e há evidências de que os inibidores seletivos de recaptura de serotonina (ISRS) melhoram os níveis glicêmicos e podem reduzir a taxa de recaídas, mostrando-se boas opções de tratamento farmacológico. A eletroconvulsoterapia também é uma estratégia interessante para esses pacientes, recomendando-se, no entanto, monitorização da glicemia. Não foram encontrados estudos significativos sobre os demais antidepressivos disponíveis para comercialização.Diabetes mellitus has an estimated prevalence of 7% among Brazilian population. Around 20% to 30% of these patients have a depressive disorder. Depression can work as risk factor to the development of diabetes, can worse its symptoms and interfere with self-care. When not adequately treated, depressive disorder in these patients tends to have high rates of recurrence. Among the available treatments literature shows a benefit of psychotherapy, mainly cognitive or cognitive-behavioral, in ameliorating depressive symptoms, but without impact on glycaemic control. Tryciclic antidepressants, especially those with more noradrenergic profile, and monoamino oxidase inhibitors are associated with worsening of glycaemic control. Bupropion shows no action on glucose blood levels and there are evidences that serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors may improve the glycaemic levels and reduce the recurrence, being good choices to treat these patients. Electroconvulsive therapy is an interesting treatment to these patients, but monitoring of blood glucose is recommended. We did not find data about other antidepressants

Depressão e diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus has an estimated prevalence of 7% among Brazilian population. Around 20% to 30% of these patients have a depressive disorder. Depression can work as risk factor to the development of diabetes, can worse its symptoms and interfere with self-care. When not adequately treated, depressive disorder in these patients tends to have high rates of recurrence. Among the available treatments literature shows a benefit of psychotherapy, mainly cognitive or cognitive-behavioral, in ameliorating depressive symptoms, but without impact on glycaemic control. Tryciclic antidepressants, especially those with more noradrenergic profile, and monoamino oxidase inhibitors are associated with worsening of glycaemic control. Bupropion shows no action on glucose blood levels and there are evidences that serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors may improve the glycaemic levels and reduce the recurrence, being good choices to treat these patients. Electroconvulsive therapy is an interesting treatment to these patients, but monitoring of blood glucose is recommended. We did not find data about other antidepressants.O diabetes mellitus possui elevada prevalência, acometendo cerca de 7% da população brasileira. Em torno de 20% a 30% dos pacientes com diabetes apresentam depressão. A depressão pode atuar como um fator de risco para o desenvolvimento do diabetes, piorar seus sintomas e interferir com o autocuidado dos pacientes. Quando não tratada adequadamente, a depressão nesses pacientes tende a evoluir com elevada taxa de recorrência. Entre os tratamentos disponíveis, encontramos na literatura um benefício da psicoterapia, cognitiva ou cognitivo-comportamental, para melhora dos sintomas depressivos, mas sem evidência de um benefício no controle glicêmico. Os antidepressivos tricíclicos, em especial os com maior ação noradrenérgica, e os inibidores da monoaminoxidase (IMAOs) tendem a aumentar os níveis glicêmicos. A bupropiona não interfere na glicemia e há evidências de que os inibidores seletivos de recaptura de serotonina (ISRS) melhoram os níveis glicêmicos e podem reduzir a taxa de recaídas, mostrando-se boas opções de tratamento farmacológico. A eletroconvulsoterapia também é uma estratégia interessante para esses pacientes, recomendando-se, no entanto, monitorização da glicemia. Não foram encontrados estudos significativos sobre os demais antidepressivos disponíveis para comercialização

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit:prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

Purpose: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there is a need to define optimal levels of perioperative care. Our aim was to describe the relationship between the provision and use of critical care resources and postoperative mortality. Methods: Planned analysis of data collected during an international 7-day cohort study of adults undergoing elective in-patient surgery. We used risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression models to evaluate the association between admission to critical care immediately after surgery and in-hospital mortality. We evaluated hospital-level associations between mortality and critical care admission immediately after surgery, critical care admission to treat life-threatening complications, and hospital provision of critical care beds. We evaluated the effect of national income using interaction tests. Results: 44,814 patients from 474 hospitals in 27 countries were available for analysis. Death was more frequent amongst patients admitted directly to critical care after surgery (critical care: 103/4317 patients [2%], standard ward: 99/39,566 patients [0.3%]; adjusted OR 3.01 [2.10–5.21]; p < 0.001). This association may differ with national income (high income countries OR 2.50 vs. low and middle income countries OR 4.68; p = 0.07). At hospital level, there was no association between mortality and critical care admission directly after surgery (p = 0.26), critical care admission to treat complications (p = 0.33), or provision of critical care beds (p = 0.70). Findings of the hospital-level analyses were not affected by national income status. A sensitivity analysis including only high-risk patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions: We did not identify any survival benefit from critical care admission following surgery

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline