University of Minnesota

About: University of Minnesota is a education organization based out in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 117432 authors who have published 257986 publications receiving 11944239 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities & University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Hemodialysis leukopenia. Pulmonary vascular leukostasis resulting from complement activation by dialyzer cellophane membranes.

Abstract: Acute leukopenia occurs in all patients during the first hour of hemodialysis with cellophanemembrane equipment. This transient cytopenia specifically involves granulocytes and monocytes, cells which share plasma membrane reactivity towards activated complement components. The present studies document that complement is activated during exposure of plasma to dialyzer cellophane, and that upon reinfusion of this plasma into the venous circulation, granulocyte and monocyte entrapment in the pulmonary vasculature is induced. During early dialysis, conversion of both C3 and factor B can be demonstrated in plasma as it leaves the dialyzer. Moreover, simple incubation of human plasma with dialyzer cellophane causes conversion of C3 and factor B, accompanied by depletion of total hemolytic complement and C3 but sparing of hemolytic C1. Reinfusion of autologous, cellophane-incubated plasma into rabbits produces selective granulocytopenia and monocytopenia identical to that seen in dialyzed patients. Lungs from such animals reveal striking pulmonary vessel engorgement with granulocytes. The activated complement component(s) responsible for leukostasis has an approximate molecular weight of 7,000-20,000 daltons. Since it is generated in C2-deficient plasma and is associated with factor B conversion, it is suggested that activation of complement by dialysis is predominantly through the altermative pathway.

Long-Term Effects of Intensive Glucose Lowering on Cardiovascular Outcomes

Abstract: A b s t r ac t Background Intensive glucose lowering has previously been shown to increase mortality among persons with advanced type 2 diabetes and a high risk of cardiovascular disease. This report describes the 5-year outcomes of a mean of 3.7 years of intensive glucose lowering on mortality and key cardiovascular events. Methods We randomly assigned participants with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level of 7 to 7.9%). After termination of the intensive therapy, due to higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group, the target glycated hemoglobin level was 7 to 7.9% for all participants, who were followed until the planned end of the trial. Results Before the intensive therapy was terminated, the intensive-therapy group did not differ significantly from the standard-therapy group in the rate of the primary outcome (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) (P = 0.13) but had more deaths from any cause (primarily cardiovascular) (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.44) and fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95). These trends persisted during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio for death, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; and hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96). After the intensive intervention was terminated, the median glycated hemoglobin level in the intensive-therapy group rose from 6.4% to 7.2%, and the use of glucose-lowering medications and rates of severe hypoglycemia and other adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy for 3.7 years to target a glycated hemoglobin level below 6% reduced 5-year nonfatal myocardial infarctions but increased 5-year mortality. Such a strategy cannot be recommended for high-risk patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: a randomized trial.

Abstract: ContextStudies have suggested that the quality of primary care delivered by nurse practitioners is equal to that of physicians. However, these studies did not measure nurse practitioner practices that had the same degree of independence as the comparison physician practices, nor did previous studies provide direct comparison of outcomes for patients with nurse practitioner or physician providers.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes for patients randomly assigned to nurse practitioners or physicians for primary care follow-up and ongoing care after an emergency department or urgent care visit.DesignRandomized trial conducted between August 1995 and October 1997, with patient interviews at 6 months after initial appointment and health services utilization data recorded at 6 months and 1 year after initial appointment.SettingFour community-based primary care clinics (17 physicians) and 1 primary care clinic (7 nurse practitioners) at an urban academic medical center.PatientsOf 3397 adults originally screened, 1316 patients (mean age, 45.9 years; 76.8% female; 90.3% Hispanic) who had no regular source of care and kept their initial primary care appointment were enrolled and randomized with either a nurse practitioner (n = 806) or physician (n = 510).Main Outcome MeasuresPatient satisfaction after initial appointment (based on 15-item questionnaire); health status (Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36), satisfaction, and physiologic test results 6 months later; and service utilization (obtained from computer records) for 1 year after initial appointment, compared by type of provider.ResultsNo significant differences were found in patients' health status (nurse practitioners vs physicians) at 6 months (P = .92). Physiologic test results for patients with diabetes (P = .82) or asthma (P = .77) were not different. For patients with hypertension, the diastolic value was statistically significantly lower for nurse practitioner patients (82 vs 85 mm Hg; P = .04). No significant differences were found in health services utilization after either 6 months or 1 year. There were no differences in satisfaction ratings following the initial appointment (P = .88 for overall satisfaction). Satisfaction ratings at 6 months differed for 1 of 4 dimensions measured (provider attributes), with physicians rated higher (4.2 vs 4.1 on a scale where 5 = excellent; P = .05).ConclusionsIn an ambulatory care situation in which patients were randomly assigned to either nurse practitioners or physicians, and where nurse practitioners had the same authority, responsibilities, productivity and administrative requirements, and patient population as primary care physicians, patients' outcomes were comparable.