Association between hemoglobin glycation index and subclinical myocardial injury in the general population free from cardiovascular disease

Background and aimsThe relationship between hemoglobin glycation index (HGI) and the diagnosis and prognosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been verified by previous studies. However, it remains unknown whether HGI has a predictive effect on subclinical myocardial injury (SC–MI). The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between HGI and SC–MI in the general population free from CVD.Methods and resultsThe present study included 6009 participants free of CVD from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Binary Logistic regression analysis was used to tested the association between HGI and SC–MI. As results, the HGI was significantly higher in participants with SC–MI compared with those without, and the HGI was positively correlated with SC–MI and other metabolic disorder parameters. Each 1-unit increase of HGI and glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was independently associated with higher risk of SC–MI (P < 0.05), while fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was no longer a predictive indicator of SC–MI with the increase of confounding factors [OR (95% CI): 1.001 (0.999–1.003), P = 0.305]. And in the subgroup analysis, HGI, only in participants without diabetes, was independently associated with higher risk of SC–MI, while HbA1c and FPG had no independent predictive role in both diabetic and non-diabetic participants.ConclusionsHGI was a significant predictor of SC–MI in the general population free from CVD.     

Serum uric acid in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An innocent bystander or leading actor?

Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels have been associated with several cardiovascular risk factors and the progression of coronary artery disease. In the setting of acute myocardial infarction, increasing evidence suggests that high SUA levels could be related to adverse outcomes. Interestingly elevated SUA levels have been linked to endothelial dysfunction, inflammation and oxidative stress. The aim of this review is to discuss the potential negative effects of SUA in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, analyzing the possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.     

Acute Myocardial Infarction From Embolized Left Ventricular Thrombus in Coronavirus Disease 2019

A 44-year-old man with a late presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia developed a left ventricular apical thrombus resulting in an asymptomatic anterior myocardial infarction due to extensive thrombosis of the left anterior descending artery. There are increasing reports of thrombotic complications in patients infected with COVID-19. This case highlights the risk of thrombotic events caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-related corona virus-2 and the associated challenges in management. The objective of this case report is to generate primary literature and raise awareness and appreciation for cardiac manifestations of COVID-19.     

尿液10项肾损伤标志物检测试剂的性能评价

摘要:目的对尿液 10项肾损伤标志物检测试剂进行性能评价,并评估其临床适用性。方法对北京利德曼公司尿液a1 微球蛋白(u-a|MG)、总蛋白(u-TP)、免疫球蛋白G(u-IgG) 、微量清蛋白(u-Alb)、中性粒细胞明胶酶相关脂质运载蛋白(u-NGAL)、半胱氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂C(u-CysC).视黄醇结合蛋白(u-RBP)、β2微球蛋白(u-β2MG)、N-乙酰-β-D-氨基葡萄糖苷酶(u-NAG).、转铁蛋白(u-Trf)检测试剂盒进行性能评价。正确度和精密度验证参考美国临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)EP15-A3,验证物质采用ERM-DA470k、ERM-DA471、B2M-NIBSC等参考物质及纯度物质;线性验证参考CLSI EP06;抗干扰能力参考CISI EP07;不同检测系统间比对参考CISI EP09。结果正确度方面,10 项标志物检测试剂测定标准物质在低值、中值、高值的偏倚分别为-2.69% ~4.67%、-3.60% ~3.33% .-2.38% ~3.02%;不精密度方面,重复性以不精密度表示,在低值和高值处分别为1.90%~5.43%、0.63% ~2.42%,室内不精密度为2.27%~5.63%、1.09%~3.41%,均满足临床要求;10项尿液标志物线性范围在0.06~4.40 mg/L至21.83~2 146.77 mg/L之间。抗干扰方面,u-1 MG、u-Alb、u-β2MG、u-Trf 、u-CysC、u-NAG分别在血红蛋白终浓度≤8 g/L、≤8 g/L、≤4 g/L、≤4 g/L、≤2g/L、≤1 g/L时,未受到明显干扰(百分偏差≤+ 10%) ,而u-TP、u-IgG、 u-RBP、u-NGAL在血红蛋白终浓度≥0.125 g/L时即受干扰。不同检测系统间偏差超出临床允许范围。结论尿液 10项肾损伤标志物的正确度、精密度、线性范围和抗血红蛋白干扰能力满足临床需要,不同检测系统间标志物测量结果可比性欠佳。     

Efficacy of a heel offloading boot in reducing heel pressure injuries in patients in Australian intensive care units: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo compare time to incidence, extent of incidence and severity of heel pressure injury with a heel off-loading boot (intervention) or pillows (control).Research methodology/designMulti-centre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial of 394 critically ill patients. Patients were randomised to the intervention or control for heel offloading.SettingThree hospital intensive care units; two in greater Sydney, Australia and one in regional New South Wales, Australia.Main outcome measuresTime to intensive care unit-acquired pressure injury in heels of patients without pre-existing heel pressure injury within 28 days from intensive care unit admission. Secondary outcomes: incidence of heel pressure injury within 28 days of intensive care unit admission; severity of intensive care unit-acquired heel pressure injuries; occurrence of plantar contractures (a change in ankle dorsiflexion of 5° or greater) within 28 days of admission.ResultsWithin 28 days of admission, one pressure injury was recorded in the intervention group and 11 in the control group. Hazard of pressure injury incidence within 28 days of admission was significantly lower (p = 0.0239) in heels assigned to the intervention (hazard ratio 0.0896 [95% CI 0.0110, 0.727]). Odds of pressure injury incidence within 28 days of admission were significantly lower (p = 0.0261) in the intervention group (odds ratio 0.0883 [95% CI 0.0104, 0.749]). The pressure injury recorded in the intervention group was superficial (stage 1) whereas those recorded in the control group were more severe (stage 2 to 4).ConclusionThe heel-offloading boot used in this study significantly reduced heel pressure injury occurrence compared with heel offloading using pillows.