RESUMEN
SUMMARY: This study aimed to compare the clinical value of carotid ultrasound and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for carotid artery stenosis in patients with cerebral infarction. Sixty patients with cerebral infarction underwent carotid ultrasound and DSA. Carotid artery stenosis, degree of stenosis (mild, moderate, severe, and occlusion), and carotid artery plaques were recorded and compared. Carotid stenosis rate was 96.67 % (58/60) and 91.67 % (55/60) on DSA and carotid ultrasound, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. Mild, moderate, and severe carotid artery stenosis and occlusion were diagnosed in 35, 28, 20, and 17 arteries, respectively, with DSA, and in 39, 25, 10, and 9 arteries, respectively, with carotid ultrasound. There was a statistically significant difference in the degree of carotid stenosis between the two methods (p<0.05). The kappa value of carotid plaques detected by carotid ultrasound and DSA was 0.776, indicating good consistency. Both carotid ultrasound and DSA are effective for screening carotid artery stenosis and carotid atherosclerotic plaques. While carotid ultrasound is faster and more convenient, DSA can more accurately detect the degree of stenosis and presence of occlusion. Thus, our recommendation is a combination of carotid ultrasound and DSA in clinical settings to improve the convenience and accuracy of diagnosis.
Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar el valor clínico de la ecografía carotídea y la angiografía por sustracción digital (DSA) para la estenosis de la arteria carótida en pacientes con infarto cerebral. Sesenta pacientes con infarto cerebral fueron sometidos a ecografía carotídea y DSA. Se registraron y compararon la estenosis de la arteria carótida, el grado de estenosis (leve, moderada, grave y oclusión) y las placas de la arteria carótida. La tasa de estenosis carotídea fue del 96,67 % (58/60) y del 91,67 % (55/60) en DSA y ecografía carotídea, respectivamente, y la diferencia no fue estadísticamente significativa. Se diagnosticaron estenosis y oclusión de la arteria carótida leve, moderada y grave en 35, 28, 20 y 17 arterias, respectivamente, con DSA, y en 39, 25, 10 y 9 arterias, respectivamente, con ecografía carotídea. Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el grado de estenosis carotídea entre los dos métodos (p<0,05). El valor kappa de las placas carotídeas detectadas por ecografía carotídea y DSA fue de 0,776, lo que indica una buena consistencia. Tanto la ecografía carotídea como la DSA son eficaces para detectar la estenosis de la arteria carótida y las placas ateroscleróticas carotídeas. Si bien la ecografía carotídea es más rápida y conveniente, la DSA puede detectar con mayor precisión el grado de estenosis y la presencia de oclusión. Por lo tanto, nuestra recomendación es una combinación de ecografía carotídea y DSA en entornos clínicos para mejorar la conveniencia y precisión del diagnóstico.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Ultrasonido , Angiografía de Substracción Digital , Infarto Cerebral/complicaciones , Estenosis Carotídea/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estenosis Carotídea/etiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) might predict the all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the correlation between GNRI and all-cause mortality in patients with HF. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for clinical trials investigating the association between GNRI and all-cause mortality in patients with HF, having the primary endpoint as all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, nine studies involving 7,659 subjects were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The results indicated that major risk and moderate risk GNRI (GNRI<92) was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in elderly patients with HF (hazard ratios [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.37-1.85). Low risk GNRI (GNRI<98) group predicted all-cause mortality in elderly HF patients (HR 1.56, 95%CI 1.12-2.18) when compared with the high GNRI value group. A subgroup analysis indicated that the relationship between GNRI and HF might differ based on the subtype of heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: GNRI is a simple and well-established nutritional assessment tool to predict all-cause mortality in patients with HF.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Desnutrición , Anciano , Evaluación Geriátrica , Humanos , Evaluación Nutricional , Estado Nutricional , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) might predict the all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the correlation between GNRI and all-cause mortality in patients with HF. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for clinical trials investigating the association between GNRI and all-cause mortality in patients with HF, having the primary endpoint as all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, nine studies involving 7,659 subjects were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The results indicated that major risk and moderate risk GNRI (GNRI<92) was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in elderly patients with HF (hazard ratios [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.37-1.85). Low risk GNRI (GNRI<98) group predicted all-cause mortality in elderly HF patients (HR 1.56, 95%CI 1.12-2.18) when compared with the high GNRI value group. A subgroup analysis indicated that the relationship between GNRI and HF might differ based on the subtype of heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: GNRI is a simple and well-established nutritional assessment tool to predict all-cause mortality in patients with HF.