다중혈관 관상동맥 환자에서 y-문합을 이용하여 양쪽 내흉동맥만을 사용한 우회술의 조기 성적

[신간의 별자리x] 우리/미술, 그리고 ‘슬픔의 박물관’

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

The relation between diabetes and major types of dementia is controversial. This systematic review examines the incidence of dementia in people with diabetes mellitus. We identified 14 eligible longitudinal population-based studies of variable methodological quality. The incidence of "any dementia" was higher in individuals with diabetes than in those without diabetes in seven of ten studies reporting this aggregate outcome. This high risk included both Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia (eight of 13 studies and six of nine studies respectively). Detailed data on modulating and mediating effects of glycaemic control, microvascular complications, and comorbidity (eg, hypertension and stroke) were generally absent. The findings of mechanistic studies suggest that vascular disease and alterations in glucose, insulin, and amyloid metabolism underlie the pathophysiology, but which of these mechanisms are clinically relevant is unclear. Further high quality studies need to be initiated, with objective diabetes assessment, together with reliable methods to establish the contribution of vascular disease and other comorbidity to dementia.

Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Cognition and synaptic plasticity in diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE —To investigate the exact nature and magnitude of cognitive impairments in patients with type 1 diabetes and the possible association with other disease variables, such as recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia and metabolic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS —MedLine and PsycLit search engines were used to identify studies on cognitive performance in patients with type 1 diabetes. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d ), which are the standardized differences between the experimental and the control group, were calculated. In the meta-analysis, a combined d value was calculated, expressing the magnitude of associations across studies. RESULTS —A total of 33 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Compared with nondiabetic control subjects, the type 1 diabetic group demonstrated a significantly lowered performance on the following cognitive domains: intelligence ( d = −0.7), speed of information processing ( d = −0.3), psychomotor efficiency ( d = −0.6), visual ( d = −0.4) and sustained attention ( d = −0.3), cognitive flexibility ( d = −0.5), and visual perception ( d = −0.4). Lowered cognitive performance in diabetic patients appeared to be associated with the presence of microvascular complications but not with the occurrence of severe hypoglycemic episodes or with poor metabolic control. CONCLUSIONS —In patients with type 1 diabetes, cognitive dysfunction is characterized by a slowing of mental speed and a diminished mental flexibility, whereas learning and memory are spared.The magnitude of the cognitive deficits is mild to moderate, but even mild forms of cognitive dysfunction might hamper everyday activities since they can be expected to present problems in more demanding situations.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/28/3/726.full.pdf

The Effects of Type 1 Diabetes on Cognitive Performance: A meta-analysis

Diabetes mellitus is associated with cognitive dysfunction and abnormalities that can be seen with brain imaging. Recent studies provide important new insights into the nature and severity of these cerebral complications that help to explain why some patients with diabetes have clinically relevant neurocognitive morbidity, whereas most are apparently unaffected. This Personal View investigates the hypothesis that clinically relevant diabetes-related cognitive decrements mainly occur at two crucial periods in life: when the brain is developing in childhood, and when the brain undergoes neurodegenerative changes associated with ageing. Outside of these periods cognitive decrements mainly occur in patients with notable diabetes-related comorbidities, in particular microvascular or macrovascular complications. The identification of crucial periods and conditions for the development of diabetes-related cognitive decrements helps to draw the attention of physicians to individuals at risk and can direct future studies into the mechanisms that underlie these conditions.

Cognition and diabetes: a lifespan perspective.

Cognitive dysfunction is increasingly recognized as an important comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. Different stages of diabetes-associated cognitive dysfunction exist, each with different cognitive features, affected age groups and prognoses and probably with different underlying mechanisms. Relatively subtle, slowly progressive cognitive decrements occur in all age groups. More severe stages, particularly mild cognitive impairment and dementia, with progressive deficits, occur primarily in older individuals (>65 years of age). Patients in the latter group are the most relevant for patient management and are the focus of this Review. Here, we review the evolving insights from studies on risk factors, brain imaging and neuropathology, which provide important clues on mechanisms of both the subtle cognitive decrements and the more severe stages of cognitive dysfunction. In the majority of patients, the cognitive phenotype is probably defined by multiple aetiologies. Although both the risk of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease and that of vascular dementia is increased in association with diabetes, the cerebral burden of the prototypical pathologies of Alzheimer disease (such as neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques) is not. A major challenge for researchers is to pinpoint from the spectrum of diabetes-related disease processes those that affect the brain and contribute to development of dementia beyond the pathologies of Alzheimer disease. Observations from experimental models can help to meet that challenge, but this requires further improving the synergy between experimental and clinical scientists. The development of targeted treatment and preventive strategies will therefore depend on these translational efforts.

Geert Jan Biessels

Papers

Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Cognition and synaptic plasticity in diabetes mellitus

The Effects of Type 1 Diabetes on Cognitive Performance: A meta-analysis

Cognition and diabetes: a lifespan perspective.

Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes mellitus: mechanisms and clinical implications.