Partners in adversity V: Support,personality and coping behaviour at the time of crisis

This paper presents further results from a study of married women in Edinburgh who had just suffered an adverse experience: either their husband's non-fatal myocardial infartion, their husband's death or their own arrival in a Women's Aid refuge for battered women. Interviews were carried out 4–6 weeks following the adverse experience and, where possible, again approximately 3 months later. Symptoms were assessed using the 30-item General Health Questionnaire and criterion-based measures of depression and anxiety derived from it. The extent and nature of crisis support from household members and from groups of people outside the household, and also of failures in expected support, was measured at first interview. A modified version of Tyrer and Alexander's (1979) personality schedule was administered at the follow-up interview, and the resulting personality data were then reduced to six factors using principal components analysis. An interviewer assessment of how well the subject was coping was made at both interviews. The vast majority of the sample received extensive practical and emotional support from family and friends, and perhaps because such positive support was so prevalent, variations in it seemed to have little effect on symptoms. However, subjects who were unexpectedly let down or criticised by friends or family tended to show higher symptom levels, although, surprisingly, this was less true for the bereaved wives than for the others. The six personality factors that emerged were labellednervousness (similar to neuroticism)impulsivity, social withdrawal, helplessness, inferiority andaggressiveness. There was evidence that subjects high on nervousness remained symptomatic longer following the adverse experience. The aggressiveness factor showed a curvilinear trend with high and low aggressives showing higher symptom levels than middle aggressives. However, for the coronary wives the trend was linear with low aggressives having high symptoms. Subjects low on impulsivity were more affected by being let down by friends and family. The interviewer-assessed coping measure was linearly related to nervousness and showed a curvilinear relationship with aggressiveness.     

Diuretic-related hypokalaemia: the role of diuretics,potassium supplements,glucocorticoids and β2-adrenoceptor agonists

All 5,047 consecutive inpatients admitted to the Internal Medicine Division of a teaching hospital (Zieglerspital, Berne) between 1982 and 1985 were registered in accordance with the CHDM (Comprehensive Hospital Drug Monitoring) questionnaire of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Of them, 2,439 were treated with at least one potassium losing diuretic. The hospital records of the patients were reviewed with particular regard to serum potassium levels, and on the basis of this evaluation, the patients were assigned to four different diuretic treatment groups, and the incidence of hypokalaemia related to diuretic treatment was estimated. The overall rate of occurrence of hypokalaemia was 21.1% at a serum potassium level <3.5 mmol·1^–1, and 3.8% <3.0 mmol·1^–1. Hypokalaemia of less than 3.5 mml·1^–1 developed 24.9% (217/870) of patients treated with potassium losing diuretics alone; in 19.7% (101/513) treated with potassium losing diuretics in conjunction with potassium substitution, in 15.1% (66/438) treated with a combination of diuretics (potassium losing with potassium sparing), and in 20.0% (12/60) treated with combined diuretics and potassium substitution. Only the differences between the first and the two subsequent groups were statistically significant. The overall incidence of hypokalaemia below 3.0+mmol·1^–1 was significantly lower in the patients on combined diuretics without potassium substitution than in the patients on potassium losing diuretics with potassium substitution.Oral or parenteral administration of glucocorticoids (prednisone 5 to 2,000 mg/d) was a significant risk factor for hypokalaemic events. ₂-Adrenoceptor agonists had not effect. The patient's age, sex, renal function and numbers of drugs received were evaluated in a multivariate analysis, in order to take into account their influence on the risk of developing hypokalaemia. The number of drugs above 12 (and, less importantly, female sex) was the main risk factor for this ADR.The comparison between hypokalaemia and hyperkalaemia in this group of inpatients showed the significance of reduced renal function in the occurrence of hyperkalaemia.     

尼可地尔超极化心脏停搏心肌保护的实验研究

目的：评估尼可地尔（Ｎｉｃｏｒａｄｉｌ）超极化心脏停搏心肌保护的有效性,并与高钾心肌麻痹液去极化心脏停搏的心肌保护效果进行比较。方法：实验分３组,即对照组、去极化心脏停搏组、超极化心脏停搏组。１０ｍｌ４℃心肌麻痹液诱停离体鼠心,每３０ｍｉｎ重复灌注心肌麻痹液５ｍｌ,在（１５±１）℃下心脏停搏１２０ｍｉｎ,再灌注后离体心工作３０ｍｉｎ。记录心脏机械停搏时间、再灌注后心脏复跳情况、心功能指标恢复（左室发展压、主动脉流量及左室压力微分）、冠状循环灌注平均流量、心肌丙二醛（ＭＤＡ）含量、电镜下心肌超微结构的改变。结果：超极化心脏停搏组对心功能恢复、冠状循环灌注平均流量及心肌组织超微结构的保护效果优于去极化心脏停搏组（Ｐ＜０．０５）,心肌ＭＤＡ含量低于去极化心脏停搏组（Ｐ＜０．０１）。结论：尼可地尔超极化心肌麻痹液（１００μｍｏｌ／Ｌ）心肌保护效果优于高钾去极化心肌麻痹液     

加热法人心肌钙蛋白T的提取与纯化

目的以加热法从人左心室肌组织中提取并纯化心肌肌钙蛋白Ｔ（ＣＴｎＴ）。方法取新鲜人左心室肌经捣碎、淬取、加热、透析后提取ＣＴｎＴ,以ＤＥＡＥ５２柱层析纯化。结果经ＳＤＳ－ＰＡＧＥ凝胶电泳初步鉴定,每１００ｇ左心室肌经此法可得１１．７９ｍｇＣＴｎＴ纯品,纯化后的ｃＴｎＴ为单一条带,分子量为３７ＫＤ。结论本法提取ＣＴｎＴ步骤简单,纯度尚可,可做抗原使用。     

电化学疗法治疗中晚期食管癌和贲门癌42例

目的探讨应用电化学疗法治疗中晚期食管癌和贲门癌的临床疗效。方法电化学疗法治疗中晚期食管癌和贲门癌４２例,对其治疗前后的疗效进行比较。结果通过对比电化学治疗前后食管Ｘ线钡餐检查及进食改善情况显示,８８％的患者在接受电化学治疗后进食明显改善,８９％的患者食管狭窄扩大在０．５ｃｍ以上。结论电化学疗法治疗食管癌和贲门癌解除食管梗阻见效快,疗效显著,能恢复患者饮食,可为实施其他治疗创造条件,使其远期生存率提高。     

多普勒超声心动图评估左心室舒张末压的研究

目的探讨多普勒超声心动图评估左室舒张末压的有效方法与指标。方法对６８例病人采用左心导管测压及经胸多普勒超声心动图检测。结果对比研究显示,联合肺静脉与二尖瓣血流频谱分析优于二尖瓣血流频谱分析,肺静脉Ａ峰和二尖瓣Ａ峰时限差值（ＰＡｄ－Ａｄ）与左室舒张末压实测值呈最佳相关性（ｒ＝０．７２,Ｐ＜０．０１）。结论认为应用多普勒超声心动图测定ＰＡｄ与Ａｄ,并以其差值估测左室舒张末压,是一项简便、可靠的无创性评估左室舒张末压的方法。ＰＡｄ－Ａｄ≥０可作为临床判断左室舒张末压增高［≥２．０ｋＰａ（１５ｍｍＨｇ）］的一项半定量指标。     

新型常规潜艇长航60昼夜对艇员体能耐力及心理工效的影响

目的;探讨新型常规潜艇长航６０昼夜对艇员视力听力,心肺功能、体能耐力和心理工效等的影响。方法：通过临床体检,特殊检查观察长航艇员生理和心理方面的变化。结果：长航艇员视力和听力下降,心率加快,心脏搏出量减少,用力肺活量及最大通气量减少,体能耐力和工作能力下降。结论：潜艇长航对艇员视力听力,心肺功能,体能耐力,工作能力和心理工效均有一定程度的影响。     

Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients A comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports

Objective: This study investigated the relative value of adverse drug events reported by doctors, nurses and patients. Methods: The study was conducted on a total of four wards: the paediatric and internal medicine wards (including geriatric patients) of two peripheral hospitals in the Netherlands. Adverse drug events were collected by spontaneous reporting (doctor and nurse reports) and by daily ward visits, during which the patients were interviewed by a hospital pharmacist (patient reports). Criteria for relative value of the reported adverse drug events were the number of potentially serious reactions, the number of reactions not mentioned in the patient information leaflet and the number of reactions reported to new drugs (5 years or less on the Dutch market). No formal causality assessment was applied. Results: Over a period of 2 months in 1996 (Hospital I) and 2 months in 1997 (Hospital II) a total of 620 patients were included in the study and adverse drug events were reported in 179 (29%) of these cases. Doctors reported a statistically significant larger number of serious (26% of all doctor reports; odds ratio (OR) 3.2; confidence interval (CI) 1.2–8.7) and unknown (39%; OR 2.5; CI 1.0–6.0) adverse drug events than patients themselves during the daily ward visit. Doctors also reported more serious and unknown adverse drug events than nurses. Adverse reactions to new drugs were reported during the daily ward visit only (8% of all daily ward visit reports). Conclusion: This study reconfirms that doctors are the main source for reports of serious and unknown adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. However, patients themselves seem to report more adverse reactions to new drugs (during the daily ward visit). By focusing on patients using new drugs, the daily ward visit might become cost-effective. This needs to be explored in future studies. Received: 10 September 1998 / Accepted in revised form: 30 November 1998