Off pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in critical left mainstem stenosis—Our experience

Background Beating heart surgery has now become the commonest technique of doing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG) in our country. It is being used even in such high risk situations like diffuse coronary disease and Critical Left Main stem Stenosis (LMCS) with good results. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review our results in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (OPCAB) in patients with critical left main stem stenosis. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of the data of patients who underwent primary coronary artery bypass surgery. During the period from April 2003 to September 2005 a total of 64 patients underwent OPCAB procedure for critical LMCS. During the same period 10 patients underwent CABG on Cardio Pulmonary Bypass (CPB). The age range was 36–77yrs. The sex distribution was M: F 53∶10. Ten patients were done as emergency. 2 of them were on Intra Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support preoperatively. 10 patients were high risk with a Euro score of ≥5. Results Left Internal Mammary Artery (LIMA) was used in 78% of cases. Average grafts per patient was 2.96. The median ventilation time was 5.91 hrs. New IABP insertion in postoperative period was required in 1 patient. One patient was reexplored for bleeding. There was one perioperative myocardial infarction. 57% of patients did not need any blood transfusion. There was no conversion to CPB. There was no operative mortality. Inotropes were used in ten cases. Conclusions OPCAB is a safe method of revascularization in patients with critical LMCS. Preoperative IABP is useful in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, there is a place for CPB in patients needing additional procedures like Mitral Valve repair (MV repair) or Dor's procedure or when the vessels are very diffusely diseased. Those patients who are unstable despite IABP support may be managed by Beating heart On Pump (BHOP) technique.     

Cross-calibration of dual-energy X-ray densitometers for a large, multi-center genetic study of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a common disease with a strong genetic component characterized by reduced bone mass and an increased risk of fragility fractures. Bone mineral density (BMD) is the most important determinant of osteoporotic fracture risk, but the genes responsible for BMD regulation and fracture are incompletely defined. To enable multi-center studies to examine the genetic influences on BMD there is a requirement to standardize measurements across different manufacturers of bone densitometers, different versions of machines and different normative ranges. This paper describes a method developed to allow near-identical subjects with low age-adjusted BMD (based on Z-scores) to be recruited in 17 centers using 27 different densitometers. Cross-calibration was based on measurements using a European spine phantom circulated to all centers and measured ten times on each individual machine. From theses values an individual exponential curve, based on nominal versus observed BMD, was derived for each machine. As expected, there were large and significant variations in nominal BMD values, not only between scanners from different manufacturers but also between different versions of scanners from the same manufacturer. Hologic scanners tended to underestimate the nominal BMD, while Lunar scanners overestimated the value. Norland scanners gave mixed values over estimating BMD at the lower nominal value (0.5 g/cm²) while underestimating the value at the higher value (1.5 g/cm²). The validity of the exponential equations was tested using hip and spine measurements on 991 non-proband women from a familial osteoporosis study (FAMOS). After cross-calibration there was a considerable reduction in variation between machines. This observation, coupled with the absence of a similar reduction in variation attributable to a linear regression on age, demonstrated the validity of the cross-calibration approach. Use of the cross-calibration curves along with a standard normative range (in the case of this study, the Hologic normative range) allowed age-specific Z-scores to be used as an inclusion criterion in this genetic study, a method that will be useful for other trials where age-specific BMD inclusion criteria are required.     

氟西汀与阿米替林治疗105例抑郁障碍病人的双盲对照试验

目的：评价国产氟西汀的抗抑郁作用及安全性。方法：采用随机、双盲对照、多中心研究，分为国产氟西汀组５７例（男性２２例，女性３５例；年龄４０±ｓ１３ａ），口服氟西汀２０ｍｇ，ｑｄ，阿米替林５７例（男性２７例，女性３０例；年龄４０±１４ａ），口服阿米替林７５ｍｇ，ｂｉｄ，疗程６ｗｋ。结果：氟西汀治疗抑郁障碍的疗效与阿米替林相当，总有效率分别为８５％及９２％（Ｐ＞０．０５）；氟西汀组的主要副作用有口干、便秘、恶心、心动过速等，但较之阿米替林程度轻且发生率低。结论：氟西汀的抗抑郁作用与阿米替林相当，副作用少，服用方便。     

Evidence for a Type 1 diabetes‐specific mechanism for the insulin gene‐associated IDDM2 locus rather than a general influence on autoimmunity

Aims The Type 1 diabetes susceptibility locus, IDDM2, has been mapped to a variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) region 5′ upstream of the insulin (INS) and insulin‐like growth factor (IGF2) genes on chromosome 11p15. The function of the VNTR is uncertain; however, it may influence the thymic expression of the insulin gene and affect the development of immune self‐tolerance. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the INS VNTR region is a Type 1 diabetes‐specific locus or acting as a general autoimmunity gene. Methods We genotyped the INS‐IGF2 VNTR [using the surrogate INS?23 HphI single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)] in 823 Graves’ disease (GD)/multiple sclerosis (MS) families, 1433 GD/MS patients and 837 healthy control subjects. Results We found no evidence of excess transmission of the allele associated with Type 1 diabetes to individuals affected by GD or MS within the families. Analysis of the case–control dataset showed no genotypic or allelic difference between the two populations. Conclusions These data suggest that the INS‐IGF2 VNTR is acting as a Type 1 diabetes‐specific susceptibility gene rather than as an influence on general autoimmunity.     

Challenges in accessing multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities in Canada

PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to examine the services offered by multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) across Canada and to compare access to care at these MPTFs. METHODS: A MPTF was defined as a clinic that advertised specialized multidisciplinary services for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic pain, having a minimum of three different health care disciplines (including at least one medical speciality) available and integrated within the facility. The search method included approaching all hospital and rehabilitation centre administrators in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or similar body in each province. Designated investigators were responsible for confirming and supplementing MPTFs from the preliminary list for each province. Administrative leads at each eligible MPTF were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding their MPTF infrastructure, clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities. RESULTS: Completed survey forms were received from 102 MPTFs (response rate 85%) with 80% concentrated in major cities, and none in Prince Edward Island and the Territories. The MPTFs offer a wide variety of treatments including non-pharmacological modalities such as interventional, physical and psychological therapy. The median wait time for a first appointment in public MPTFs is six months, which is approximately 12 times longer than non-public MPTFs. Eighteen pain fellowship programs exist in Canadian MPTFs and 64% engage in some form of research activities CONCLUSION: Canadian MPTFs are unable to meet clinical demands of patients suffering from chronic pain, both in terms of regional accessibility and reasonable wait time for patients' first appointment.