RESUMEN
Background/Objective: Wolfram syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic disorder, in which patients develop early-onset diabetes mellitus (DM), optic nerve atrophy, and neurodegeneration, which has no specific treatment available. Here, we report 2 brothers treated with an insulin pump to manage the alterations of the glycemic levels due to the DM. Case Report: We present the case of 2 siblings diagnosed with Wolfram syndrome 1, they presented with typical endocrinological and neurodegenerative early manifestations, one brother was treated with a sensor-augmented insulin infusion system, and the other with an insulin pump. Both reached a better metabolic state and had improved quality of life. Discussion: The management of WS is still a challenge; however, the use of a sensor-augmented insulin infusion system and the information that it provides may offer better care to patients who require frequent monitoring and adjustments in their treatment. It has been reported that the neurodegenerative progression of WS is also associated with high glucose peaks; therefore, it is necessary to control it, even when it is hard due to the difficult-to-manage DM. There is only 1 previous case report of WS with insulin pump that describes the benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and tight metabolic control during pregnancy. Conclusion: The use of insulin pumps may be an effective treatment for DM in WS patients, mainly in terms of improving the prognosis of difficult-to-manage DM.
RESUMEN
Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de la terapia combinada de cardiomioplastia celular con el factor estimulante de colonias de granulocitos en pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica, y explorar posibles diferencias entre la vía de implantación. METODOLOGÍA: se hizo un estudio de ®antes y después¼ para datos longitudinales en el que se compararon variables ecocardiográficas y número de MET alcanzados en la prueba de esfuerzo antes, dos, seis y doce meses después del procedimiento; así mismo, se evaluaron la mortalidad y los efectos adversos de la terapia. Se exploraron diferencias en los resultados de acuerdo con la vía de implantación intracoronaria vs. epicárdica. RESULTADOS: se incluyeron dieciocho pacientes, 62,3% hombres, cuya edad promedio fue 49,4 ± 11,7 años y la fracción de eyección promedio fue 31% ± 0,04. La implantación se realizó por vía intracoronaria en doce pacientes y por vía epicárdica en seis. La mediana de fracción de eyección antes de la implantación de las células fue de 30% con un rango intercuartil de 28%-35% y la media de los MET fue de 6 con un rango intercuartil de 5-7; ambas variables, al igual que los volúmenes ventriculares de fin de diástole y sístole se incrementaron de forma significativa después del procedimiento, con tendencia a un mayor incremento de la fracción de eyección en el grupo de pacientes cuya vía de implantación fue la epicárdica en comparación con la vía intracoronaria; sin embargo, el número de pacientes en cada subgrupo impidió hacer análisis definitivos. Un paciente tuvo infección de la herida quirúrgica y tres murieron dos meses después de la implantación (uno de shock séptico y dos de shock cardiogénico)...
The objective of this study is to assess efficacy and safety of combined therapy of cellular cardiomyoplasty and granulocyte colony stimulating factor in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and explore possible differences between the implantation routes. METHODOLOGY: we performed a before and after study for longitudinal data comparing echocardiographic variables and number of Met achieved in the stress test before and at two, six and twelve months after the procedure. Likewise, mortality and adverse therapy effects were evaluated. Differences in the results were analyzed according to the intracoronary vs. epicardiac route of implantation. RESULTS: eighteen patients were included; 62,3% men, with mean age 49.4 ± 11,7 years. Mean ejection fraction was 31% ± 0,04. In twelve patients implantation was performed by intracoronary route and in six by epicardiac route. Mean ejection fraction before cell implantation was 30% with an interquartil range (IQR) of 28-35%, and MET average was 6 with an interquartil rage of 5-7. Both variables as well as end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes increased significantly after the procedure, with a tendency to greater increase in ejection fraction in the group of patients whose route was epicardial implantation compared with intracoronary route; however, the number of patients in each subgroup prevented to make a definitive analysis. One patient had surgical wound infection and three died two months after implantation (one of septic shock and two of cardiogenic shock). CONCLUSION: in our environment the performance of combination therapy with cellular cardiomyoplasty and granulocyte colony stimulating factor is feasible. This is a safe procedure that achieved a sustained improvement in ejection fraction and MET beyond benefits achieved with revascularization and optimal pharmacological therapy.