Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in a child: an often unrecognized diagnosis]

Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia is important to be diagnosed as an underlying disease in children with syncope and normal heart, because of its poor prognosis. CASE REPORT: A 3-year-old boy was referred for stress and emotion induced syncope. Primary ventricular arrhythmia, consisting of salvos of bidirectional ventricular tachycardia, was reproducibly induced by physical exertion. The syncopal events and severe arrhythmia disappeared with beta-blocking therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite its rare occurrence, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia is an important cause of stress and emotion induced syncope and sudden death in children.     

Systematic screening for diabetic retinopathy with a digital fundus camera following pupillary dilatation in a university diabetes department.

AIMS: Screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) is highly inadequate in France because of insufficient infrastructure and increasing disease prevalence. We describe the results of the first systematic DR screening programme established in a university diabetes department. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study conducted over 1 year, consecutive adult patients underwent three-field retinal photography with the Topcon TRC NW6S digital fundus camera following pupillary dilatation with Tropicamide 1%. A questionnaire provided information on patients' systemic and ocular history. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was measured at the screening visit.Two ophthalmologists graded the retinal photographs in a masked fashion. RESULTS: Of 1157 patients attending the diabetes department, 1153 (99.7%)underwent photographic screening. Images were gradable in 96% patients.Diabetic retinopathy was detected in 522 (45%) patients and sight-threatening DR in 167 (14%). Of 704 (61%) patients previously believed to have no DR,254 (34%) screened positive. The presence of DR was associated with age,insulin use and non-Caucasian ethnicity in Type 2 patients, and with duration of diabetes and HbA1c in Type 1 and Type 2 patients. Associated ocular pathologies were diagnosed in 612 (53%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our photographic screening programme using pharmacological mydriasis provided a high screening coverage feasible in a hospital setting. We obtained information regarding prevalence and associated risk factors of DR inpatients attending a tertiary care centre. Screening was well accepted by patients and met with no protest from city ophthalmologists. It generated considerable interest among endocrinologists and feedback of results is expected to improve optimization of glycaemic control.     

Physician evaluation after medical errors: does having a computer decision aid help or hurt in hindsight?

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether physicians' use of computerized decision aids affects patient satisfaction and/or blame for medical outcomes. METHOD: Experiment 1: Fifty-nine undergraduates read about a doctor who made either a correct or incorrect diagnosis and either used a decision aid or did not. All rated the quality of the doctor's decision and the likelihood of recommending the doctor. Those receiving a negative outcome also rated negligence and likelihood of suing. Experiment 2: One hundred sixty-six medical students and 154 undergraduates read negative-outcome scenarios in which a doctor either agreed with the aid, heeded the aid against his own opinion, defied the aid in favor of his own opinion, or did not use a decision aid. Subjects rated doctor fault and competence and the appropriateness of using decision aids in medicine. Medical students made judgments for themselves and for a layperson. RESULTS: Experiment 1: Using a decision aid caused a positive outcome to be rated less positively and a negative outcome to be rated less negatively. Experiment 2: Agreeing with or heeding the aid was associated with reduced fault, whereas defying the aid was associated with roughly the same fault as not using one at all. Medical students were less harsh than undergraduates but accurately predicted undergraduate's responses. CONCLUSION: Agreeing with or heeding a decision aid, but not defying it, may reduce liability after an error. However, using an aid may reduce favorability after a positive outcome.