Variability in hemoglobin A1c predicts all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes

BackgroundTo evaluate the relationship between hemoglobin A1c variability and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in type 2 diabetic patients followed for at least 2 years between 2003 and 2009. A1C variability was determined from the standard deviation or coefficient of variation of serial A1C values (A1C_SD or A1C_CV). Subjects were categorized into either the high or low A1C variability group according to their A1C_CV median. Hazard ratios (HRs) of various factors for all-cause mortality were determined from Cox's proportional hazard models.ResultsA total of 881 subjects (422 men, 459 women) were included and 73 (8.3%) died during follow-up. The follow-up period was 4.7 ± 2.3 years. All-cause mortality was higher in subjects with high A1C_CV (11.0% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002). In the Kaplan–Meier failure curve, subjects with higher A1C_CV demonstrated a trend of higher mortality (p = 0.1). In multivariate Cox's proportional hazards models, A1C_SD and A1C_CV significantly predicted all-cause mortality with an HR of 1.987 (p = 0.02) and 1.062 (p = 0.013), respectively, after adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, duration of diabetes, mean systolic blood pressure, use of antihypertensives and statins, mean LDL-cholesterol, smoking status, chronic kidney disease, and mean A1C values (A1C_MEAN). The ability of A1C_SD and A1C_CV to predict all-cause mortality was more evident in subjects with relatively low A1C_MEAN.ConclusionsA1C variability is an important risk factor for all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients.     

股骨近端锁定加压钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折

目的 探讨股骨近端锁定加压钢板（LCP）内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效.方法 采用股骨近端LCP治疗23例股骨转子间骨折的患者.随访观察骨折愈合时间,按Harris评分标准评价疗效.结果 23例均获随访,时间6~12（9±1.4）个月.骨折愈合时间14~20（17±1.7）周.髋关节Harris评分：优13例,良9例,一般1例.结论 股骨近端LCP内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折创伤小、出血少、对骨膜影响小,符合解剖形态,临床疗效满意.     

Combined Guillain–Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis

Background: Guillain–Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis both lead to muscle weakness but the two combined is uncommon. Detection of these entities can help identify forms of autoimmune neuromuscular diseases that may respond to immunotherapy. This report sought to characterize the clinical features of these two entities when combined. Methods: This report is of a case of combined Guillain–Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis. The clinical features were analyzed and correlated to those published in English literature from 1960 to 2012. Ten reports and 12 cases, including the present case, were reviewed. Results: There were 12 patients (4 women and 8 men), aged 17 to 84 years, with combined Guillain–Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis. Four had post-infectious Guillain–Barré syndrome followed by the development of myasthenia gravis concurrently or concomitantly within one month. All cases had symptoms of ptosis and areflexia. The other common presentations were limb weakness, oculobulbar weakness, and respiratory involvement. Functional outcome was mentioned in 10 patients and seven had good outcome (Hughes scale ?2). Conclusion: Detection of ptosis with or without ophthalmoplegia, distribution of limb weakness, and reflex can help in recognizing combined Guillain–Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis. The early recognition of this combination of peripheral nervous and neuro-muscular junction inflammation is important for initial treatment and prognosis.