Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 21(6): 754-766, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30690825

RESUMO

AIMS: Although acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common cause of dyspnoea, its diagnosis still represents a challenge. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging point-of-care diagnostic tool, but its diagnostic performance for ADHF has not been evaluated in randomized studies. We evaluated, in patients with acute dyspnoea, accuracy and clinical usefulness of combining LUS with clinical assessment compared to the use of chest radiography (CXR) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in conjunction with clinical evaluation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized trial conducted in two emergency departments. After initial clinical evaluation, patients with acute dyspnoea were classified by the treating physician according to presumptive aetiology (ADHF or non-ADHF). Patients were subsequently randomized to continue with either LUS or CXR/NT-proBNP. A new diagnosis, integrating the results of both initial assessment and the newly obtained findings, was then recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of LUS and CXR/NT-proBNP approaches were calculated. A total of 518 patients were randomized. Addition of LUS had higher accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95] than clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.88) in identifying ADHF (P < 0.01). In contrast, use of CXR/NT-proBNP did not significantly increase the accuracy of clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.87 and 0.85, respectively; P > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of the LUS-integrated approach was higher then that of the CXR/Nt-proBNP-integrated approach (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.01). Combining LUS with the clinical evaluation reduced diagnostic errors by 7.98 cases/100 patients, as compared to 2.42 cases/100 patients in the CXR/Nt-proBNP group. CONCLUSION: Integration of LUS with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of ADHF in the emergency department seems to be more accurate than the current diagnostic approach based on CXR and NT-proBNP.


Assuntos
Dispneia/etiologia , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Pulmão/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia/métodos , Doença Aguda , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Biomarcadores/sangue , Dispneia/sangue , Dispneia/diagnóstico , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Humanos , Masculino , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico/sangue , Fragmentos de Peptídeos/sangue , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Curva ROC , Radiografia Torácica/métodos
2.
Chest ; 148(1): 202-210, 2015 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25654562

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary diseases. However, its use for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) still raises some concerns. We tested the hypothesis that an integrated approach implementing LUS with clinical assessment would have higher diagnostic accuracy than a standard workup in differentiating ADHF from noncardiogenic dyspnea in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study in seven Italian EDs. For patients presenting with acute dyspnea, the emergency physician was asked to categorize the diagnosis as ADHF or noncardiogenic dyspnea after (1) the initial clinical assessment and (2) after performing LUS ("LUS-implemented" diagnosis). All patients also underwent chest radiography. After discharge, the cause of each patient's dyspnea was determined by independent review of the entire medical record. The diagnostic accuracy of the different approaches was then compared. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,005 patients. The LUS-implemented approach had a significantly higher accuracy (sensitivity, 97% [95% CI, 95%-98.3%]; specificity, 97.4% [95% CI, 95.7%-98.6%]) in differentiating ADHF from noncardiac causes of acute dyspnea than the initial clinical workup (sensitivity, 85.3% [95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%]; specificity, 90% [95% CI, 87.2%-92.4%]), chest radiography alone (sensitivity, 69.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.7%]; specificity, 82.1% [95% CI, 78.6%-85.2%]), and natriuretic peptides (sensitivity, 85% [95% CI, 80.3%-89%]; specificity, 61.7% [95% CI, 54.6%-68.3%]; n = 486). Net reclassification index of the LUS-implemented approach compared with standard workup was 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of LUS with the clinical evaluation may improve accuracy of ADHF diagnosis in patients presenting to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov; No.: NCT01287429; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Assuntos
Dispneia/diagnóstico por imagem , Dispneia/etiologia , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Pneumopatias/diagnóstico por imagem , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Protocolos Clínicos , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Itália , Pneumopatias/complicações , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Ultrassonografia
3.
Cancer Biol Ther ; 5(10): 1294-303, 2006 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16929163

RESUMO

Although the recently-developed Gemcitabine (GEM) has renewed interest in clinical research in pancreatic carcinoma, it offers modest improvement of tumor-related symptoms and marginal survival advantage, even when combined with other currently-available chemotherapeutic agents such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). We hypothesized that this disappointing result could be due to an interaction between the two drugs affecting cytotoxic activity. We measured in-vitro growth inhibition, cell cycle distribution, gene and protein expression of apoptosis regulators bcl-2, bcl-x and survivin, NFkappaB and telomerase activities of human pancreatic carcinoma cell line Capan-2 following exposure to GEM and 5-FU singly or combined, by MTT assay and median effect analysis, flow cytometry, real-time RT-PCR, Western blotting, electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay, respectively. We found cell growth to be inhibited by both drugs, decreasing the percentage of cells in S and G2/M phases and inducing apoptosis, dependent on the levels of bcl-2, bcl-xL and survivin expression in the case of 5-FU, but not for GEM. Moreover, while telomerase activity was reduced equally by both drugs, 5-FU but not GEM effectively downregulated NFkappaB binding activity. Intriguingly, a substantial antagonistic effect was noticed when GEM was combined with 5-FU in the concentration range tested, with the exception of the TRAP assay. These indications of an antagonistic interaction between GEM and 5-FU in some pancreatic cancer context urge further investigation of both genetic and non-genetic differences to identify the variables most relevant for optimal selection and dosing of treatment for the individual patient.


Assuntos
Antimetabólitos Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Ciclo Celular/efeitos dos fármacos , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Fluoruracila/farmacologia , Caspase 2/metabolismo , Inibidores de Caspase , Divisão Celular/efeitos dos fármacos , Linhagem Celular Tumoral , Desoxicitidina/antagonistas & inibidores , Desoxicitidina/farmacologia , Fluoruracila/antagonistas & inibidores , Humanos , Cinética , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/genética , RNA Mensageiro/genética , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa , Gencitabina
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...