Screening for left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease and is common among patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no systematic screening for LVH is currently recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether NT-proBNP was superior to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) for detection of LVH in patients with type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective cross-sectional study comparing diagnostic accuracy of ECG and NT-proBNP for the detection of LVH among patients with type 2 diabetes. Inclusion criteria included having been diagnosed for > 5 years and/or on treatment for type 2 diabetes; patients with Stage 3/4 chronic kidney disease and known cardiovascular disease were excluded. ECG LVH was defined as either the Sokolow-Lyon or Cornell voltage criteria. NT-proBNP level was measured using the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys assay. Left ventricular mass was assessed from echocardiography. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was carried out and area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>294 patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited, mean age 58 (SD 11) years, BP 134/81 ± 18/11 mmHg, HbA_1c7.3 ± 1.5%. LVH was present in 164 patients (56%). In a logistic regression model age, gender, BMI and a history of hypertension were important determinants of LVH (p < 0.05). Only 5 patients with LVH were detected by either ECG voltage criteria. The AUC for NT-proBNP in detecting LVH was 0.68.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>LVH was highly prevalent in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes. ECG was an inadequate test to identify LVH and while NT-proBNP was superior to ECG it remained unsuitable for detecting LVH. Thus, there remains a need for a screening tool to detect LVH in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes to enhance risk stratification and management.</p

Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study

Background: Clinical outcomes after major surgery are poorly described at the national level. Evidence of heterogeneity between hospitals and health-care systems suggests potential to improve care for patients but this potential remains unconfirmed. The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to assess outcomes after non-cardiac surgery in Europe.Methods: We did this 7 day cohort study between April 4 and April 11, 2011. We collected data describing consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and admission to critical care. We used χ² and Fisher’s exact tests to compare categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables. Significance was set at p&lt;0·05. We constructed multilevel logistic regression models to adjust for the differences in mortality rates between countries.Findings: We included 46 539 patients, of whom 1855 (4%) died before hospital discharge. 3599 (8%) patients were admitted to critical care after surgery with a median length of stay of 1·2 days (IQR 0·9–3·6). 1358 (73%) patients who died were not admitted to critical care at any stage after surgery. Crude mortality rates varied widely between countries (from 1·2% [95% CI 0·0–3·0] for Iceland to 21·5% [16·9–26·2] for Latvia). After adjustment for confounding variables, important differences remained between countries when compared with the UK, the country with the largest dataset (OR range from 0·44 [95% CI 0·19 1·05; p=0·06] for Finland to 6·92 [2·37–20·27; p=0·0004] for Poland).Interpretation: The mortality rate for patients undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery was higher than anticipated. Variations in mortality between countries suggest the need for national and international strategies to improve care for this group of patients.Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Society of Anaesthesiology