Focal status epilepticus: a review of pharmacological treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. One prognostic factor is the type of SE. The purpose of this review is to analyse the most recent recommendations of different scientific societies and expert groups on the treatment of SE, and the latest studies, to assess the literature on the management of focal SE. METHODS: We searched PubMed for studies published between 1 August 2008 and 1 August 2018 on the pharmacological treatment of focal SE and its different types in adults. RESULTS: We identified 29 publications among reviews, treatment guidelines, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and case series on the treatment of SE. Only 3 of them accounted for whether SE was focal or generalised; 4 focused exclusively on focal SE, and 7 differentiated between convulsive and non-convulsive SE and also record the presence of focal seizures. Treatment recommendations for focal SE do not differ from those of generalised SE in stages I and II: initially intravenous lorazepam or diazepam, if the intravenous route is available, and otherwise intramuscular midazolam, followed by intravenous phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, or lacosamide if seizures persist. Use of anaesthetic drugs should be delayed for as long as possible in patients with refractory focal SE. CONCLUSIONS: The available scientific evidence is insufficient to claim that pharmacological treatment of focal SE should be different from treatment for generalised SE. More studies with a greater number of patients are needed.

Estatus epiléptico focal: revisión del tratamiento farmacológico / Focal status epilepticus: a review of pharmacological treatment

Introducción: El estatus epiléptico (EE) es una urgencia neurológica asociada a una elevada mortalidad y morbilidad. Uno de los factores pronósticos es el tipo de EE. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar las últimas recomendaciones de las distintas sociedades científicas y grupos de expertos sobre el tratamiento del EE, así como los estudios más recientes, para evaluar las referencias sobre el manejo del EE de tipo focal.MétodosSe realizó una búsqueda en PubMed entre el 01/08/2008 y el 01/08/2018 sobre el tratamiento farmacológico del EE focal y sus distintos tipos en adultos.ResultadosSe encontraron 29 publicaciones entre revisiones, guías terapéuticas, metaanálisis, ensayos clínicos y estudios de casos sobre el tratamiento del EE. De estas, solamente 3 tienen en cuenta si el EE es focal o generalizado, 4 se centran exclusivamente en EE focales y 7 diferencian entre EE convulsivo o no convulsivo especificando si incluyen crisis focales. Las recomendaciones terapéuticas para un EE focal no difieren de las de un EE generalizado en las fases I y II: inicialmente lorazepam o diazepam intravenoso si hay acceso venoso o midazolam intramuscular en caso contrario, seguido de fenitoína, valproato, levetiracetam o lacosamida intravenosos si persisten las crisis. En EE focales refractarios se recomienda retrasar en lo posible el inicio de fármacos anestésicos.ConclusionesActualmente no disponemos de suficiente evidencia científica para afirmar que el tratamiento farmacológico del EE focal debe ser distinto al del EE generalizado. Son necesarios más registros con un amplio número de pacientes. (AU)

Introduction: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. One prognostic factor is the type of SE. The purpose of this review is to analyse the most recent recommendations of different scientific societies and expert groups on the treatment of SE, and the latest studies, to assess the literature on the management of focal SE.MethodsWe searched PubMed for studies published between 1 August 2008 and 1 August 2018 on the pharmacological treatment of focal SE and its different types in adults.ResultsWe identified 29 publications among reviews, treatment guidelines, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and case series on the treatment of SE. Only 3 of them accounted for whether SE was focal or generalised; 4 focused exclusively on focal SE, and 7 differentiated between convulsive and non-convulsive SE and also record the presence of focal seizures. Treatment recommendations for focal SE do not differ from those of generalised SE in stages I and II: initially intravenous lorazepam or diazepam, if the intravenous route is available, and otherwise intramuscular midazolam, followed by intravenous phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, or lacosamide if seizures persist. Use of anaesthetic drugs should be delayed for as long as possible in patients with refractory focal SE.ConclusionsThe available scientific evidence is insufficient to claim that pharmacological treatment of focal SE should be different from treatment for generalised SE. More studies with a greater number of patients are needed. (AU)

SEA 2022 Standards for Global Control of Cardiovascular Risk. / Estándares SEA 2022 para el control global del riesgo cardiovascular.

One of the objectives of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis is to contribute to better knowledge of vascular disease, its prevention and treatment. It is well known that cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in our country and entail a high degree of disability and health care costs. Arteriosclerosis is a multifactorial disease and therefore its prevention requires a global approach that takes into account the different risk factors with which it is associated. Therefore, this document summarizes the current level of knowledge and includes recommendations and procedures to be followed in patients with established cardiovascular disease or at high vascular risk. Specifically, this document reviews the main symptoms and signs to be evaluated during the clinical visit, the laboratory and imaging procedures to be routinely requested or requested for those in special situations. It also includes vascular risk estimation, the diagnostic criteria of the different entities that are cardiovascular risk factors, and makes general and specific recommendations for the treatment of the different cardiovascular risk factors and their final objectives. Finally, the document includes aspects that are not usually referenced in the literature, such as the organization of a vascular risk consultation.

Focal status epilepticus: a review of pharmacological treatment. / Estatus epiléptico focal: revisión del tratamiento farmacológico.

INTRODUCTION: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. One prognostic factor is the type of SE. The purpose of this review is to analyse the most recent recommendations of different scientific societies and expert groups on the treatment of SE, and the latest studies, to assess the literature on the management of focal SE. METHODS: We searched PubMed for studies published between 1 August 2008 and 1 August 2018 on the pharmacological treatment of focal SE and its different types in adults. RESULTS: We identified 29 publications among reviews, treatment guidelines, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and case series on the treatment of SE. Only 3 of them accounted for whether SE was focal or generalised; 4 focused exclusively on focal SE, and 7 differentiated between convulsive and non-convulsive SE and also record the presence of focal seizures. Treatment recommendations for focal SE do not differ from those of generalised SE in stages I and II: initially intravenous lorazepam or diazepam, if the intravenous route is available, and otherwise intramuscular midazolam, followed by intravenous phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, or lacosamide if seizures persist. Use of anaesthetic drugs should be delayed for as long as possible in patients with refractory focal SE. CONCLUSIONS: The available scientific evidence is insufficient to claim that pharmacological treatment of focal SE should be different from treatment for generalised SE. More studies with a greater number of patients are needed.

Trombosis venosa cerebral en pacientes oncológicos en tratamiento con L-asparaginasa / Cerebral sinovenous thrombosis in children due to L-asparaginase

No disponible

Necrosis grasa subcutánea complicada tras tratamiento con hipotermia terapéutica por encefalopatía hipóxico-isquémica grave / Complicated subcutaneous fat necrosis after hypothermia treatment for severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy

No disponible

Manejo del traumatismo alvéolo-dentario infantil en el Servicio de Urgencias de un hospital terciario / Management of pediatric dental injury in the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital

Introducción: el traumatismo alvéolo-dentario es muy frecuente en la infancia y supone un motivo habitual de consulta en los Servicios de Urgencias pediátricos. Objetivo: estudiar el manejo de los traumatismos dentales en un hospital terciario. Material y métodos: estudio descriptivo retrospectivo. Se incluyeron todos los menores de 15 años que consultaron por traumatismo dental en la Urgencia Pediátrica del Hospital 12 de Octubre (Madrid, España) entre septiembre de 2008 y agosto de 2010. Durante este periodo se puso en marcha un protocolo de manejo de estos pacientes en nuestro centro. Resultados: en el periodo de estudio fueron atendidos 374 pacientes, el 63% varones, con una media de edad de 4,45 años. En el 84% de los casos, la etiología fue casual, seguido de un 3% relacionado con accidentes deportivos. El 32% de los pacientes fue derivado desde otros centros para valoración por Cirugía Maxilofacial. El 60% fue atendido exclusivamente por pediatras. Las causas más frecuentes de atención por parte de Cirugía Maxilofacial fueron: sutura de laceración gingival (6,4%), extracción dental (3%) y ferulización (1,3%). El 83,4% requirió solamente tratamiento médico. Conclusiones: el trauma dental es una causa frecuente de consulta en los Servicios de Urgencias y de derivación a hospitales de referencia. La mayoría de los pacientes presenta lesiones menores que no precisan la realización de pruebas complementarias ni requieren tratamiento quirúrgico, y pueden ser manejadas por un pediatra siguiendo protocolos consensuados con especialistas en Cirugía Maxilofacial (AU)

Introduction: dental injury is very common in childhood and a frequent reason for consultation in pediatric emergency departments. Objectives: to study the management of dental injury in a tertiary hospital. Material and methods: retrospective descriptive study. All patients under 15 years old consulting for dental injury in the Pediatric Emergency Department of Hospital 12 de Octubre between September 2008 and August 2010 were included. During this period of time a specific management protocol of these patients was started. Results: a total of 374 patients were treated, 63% being males, with a median age of 4.45 years. In 84% of cases the etiology was casual, followed by a 3% sports-related accident. Thirty-two percent of the patients were referred from other centers for Maxillofacial Surgery evaluation. In 60% of cases, children were treated exclusively by pediatricians. The most common reasons for maxillofacial surgery evaluation were: suture of gingival laceration (6.4%), dental extraction (3%) and ferulization (1.3%); 83.4% required only medical treatment. Conclusions: dental injury is a common reason for consultation in the pediatric emergency department and referral to other centers. Most patients have mild lesions so they need neither complementary studies nor surgery treatment and should be managed by pediatricians following agreed protocols (AU)

Leucoencefalopatía posterior reversible secundaria a cisplatino / Cisplatin induced reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy

No disponible

Eficacia y seguridad de ezetimiba en unidades de riesgo vascular / Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe in vascular risk units

Objetivos Desconocemos la eficacia hipolipemiante y la seguridad de ezetimiba en monoterapia o combinada con estatinas en atención especializada y condiciones de práctica clínica. Pacientes y métodos Estudio retrospectivo multicéntrico (unidades hospitalarias de medicina interna y endocrinología) de pacientes tratados con ezetimiba durante al menos 12 semanas. Los pacientes fueron incluidos en tres grupos: a) ezetimiba como único hipolipemiante; b) ezetimiba añadida a estatina, y c) ezetimiba combinada de inicio con estatina. La variable principal fue el porcentaje medio de reducción de colesterol de las lipoproteínas de baja densidad (cLDL) en el último análisis disponible respecto al documentado antes de comenzar el tratamiento con ezetimiba. Resultados Incluimos a 217 pacientes (media de edad, 59 años), 61% mujeres. Un 21% padecía diabetes mellitus tipo 2 y el 20% había sufrido un evento cardovascular previo, por lo que el tratamiento hipolipemiante debía satisfacerr objetivos de prevención secundaria. En el subgrupo de monoterapia (n=92; tratamiento medio, 41 semanas) el cLDL descendió un 28% (p<0,001). En el subgrupo de ezetimiba añadido a estatinas (n=94; tratamiento medio, 73 semanas) el cLDL disminuyó un 34% (p<0,001). En el subgrupo ezetimiba más estatina de inicio (n=31; tratamiento medio, 118 semanas) el cLDL descendió un 53% (p<0,001). En total, un 64% de los pacientes alcanzó el objetivo terapéutico propuesto por el Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) para cLDL. En los pacientes con bajo riesgo (cLDL<160 mg/dl), riesgo moderado (cLDL<130 mg/dl) y riesgo alto-muy alto (cLDL<100-70 mg/dl), los enfermos en objetivo terapéutico fueron el 81%, el 64% y el 44%, respectivamente. Conclusiones En condiciones de práctica clínica habitual, ezetimiba resulta eficaz y segura para reducir el cLDL, permitiendo alcanzar los objetivos terapéuticos propuestos por ATPIII en un elevado número de pacientes, especialmente si se combina con estatinas (AU)

Objectives. This study was intended to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe when taken alone or combined with statins in a specialized care setting and under standard clinical practice conditions. Patients and methods. A multicenter, retrospective study in patients with dyslipidemia seen in a specialized outpatient clinic and treated with ezetimibe for at least 12weeks. Patients were divided into three groups: monotherapy, add-on ezetimibe, and initial coadministration. Results. A total of 217 patients (mean age 59years; 37% ¡Ý65years) were enrolled. Of these, 61% were women, 21% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had had a previous cardiovascular event so that the lipid lower drug treatment should satisfy the objectives of secondary prevention. Mean change in the monotherapy group (n=92; mean 41weeks) included: decrease of LDLc of 28% (P<.001). In the group where ezetimibe was added on to different ongoing statins (n=94, mean 73weeks), mean changes was as follows: LDLc ¨C34%, significant change as compared to monotherapy (P<.001). In the group with initial coadministration of ezetimibe with different statins (n=31; mean 118weeks), mean change included: LDLc ¨C53% (P<.001). Overall, 64% of patients reached the thereapeutic objective proposed for the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) for cLDL. In patients with low risk (LDLc<160mg/dL), moderate risk (LDLc<130mg/dL) and high-very high risk (LDLc<100-70mg/dL), the percentage of patients who reached the therapeutic objective was 81%, 64% and 44%, respectively. Conclusions. Under standard clinical practice conditions, ezetimibe appears to be effective and safe for the control LDLc, thus making it possible to reach the therapeutic objectives proposed by the ATP-III in a high number of patients, especially when associated to statins(AU)

[Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe in vascular risk units]. / Eficacia y seguridad de ezetimiba en unidades de riesgo vascular.

OBJECTIVES: This study was intended to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe when taken alone or combined with statins in a specialized care setting and under standard clinical practice conditions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study in patients with dyslipidemia seen in a specialized outpatient clinic and treated with ezetimibe for at least 12 weeks. Patients were divided into three groups: monotherapy, add-on ezetimibe, and initial coadministration. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients (mean age 59 years; 37% ≥65 years) were enrolled. Of these, 61% were women, 21% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had had a previous cardiovascular event so that the lipid lower drug treatment should satisfy the objectives of secondary prevention. Mean change in the monotherapy group (n = 92; mean 41 weeks) included: decrease of LDLc of 28% (P <.001). In the group where ezetimibe was added on to different ongoing statins (n = 94, mean 73 weeks), mean changes was as follows: LDLc -34%, significant change as compared to monotherapy (P < .001). In the group with initial coadministration of ezetimibe with different statins (n = 31; mean 118 weeks), mean change included: LDLc -53% (P < .001). Overall, 64% of patients reached the thereapeutic objective proposed for the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) for cLDL. In patients with low risk (LDLc < 160 mg/dL), moderate risk (LDLc < 130 mg/dL) and high-very high risk (LDLc < 100-70 mg/dL), the percentage of patients who reached the therapeutic objective was 81%, 64% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Under standard clinical practice conditions, ezetimibe appears to be effective and safe for the control LDLc, thus making it possible to reach the therapeutic objectives proposed by the ATP-III in a high number of patients, especially when associated to statins.

Microdevices in medicine.

The application of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) to medicine is described. Three types of biomedical devices are considered, including diagnostic microsystems, surgical microsystems, and therapeutic microsystems. The opportunities of MEMS miniaturization in these emerging disciplines are considered, with emphasis placed on the importance of the technology in providing a better outcome for the patient and a lower overall health care cost. Several case examples in each of these areas are described. Key aspects of MEMS technology as it is applied to these three areas are described, along with some of the fabrication challenges.