Does the neonatal clinical risk for illness severity influence pain reactivity and recovery in preterm infants?

Background: The biobehavioural pain reactivity and recovery of preterm infants in the neonatal period may reflect the capacity of the central nervous system to regulate neurobiological development. Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyse the influence of the neonatal clinical risk for illness severity on biobehavioural pain reactivity in preterm infants. Methods: Fifty-two preterm infants were allocated into two groups according to neonatal severity of illness, as measured by the Clinical Risk Index for Babies (CRIB). The low clinical risk (LCr) group included 30 neonates with CRIB scores <4, and the high clinical risk (HCr) group included 22 neonates with CRIB scores >= 4. Pain reactivity was assessed during a blood collection, which was divided into five phases (baseline, antisepsis, puncture, recovery-dressing and recovery-resting). Behavioral pain reactivity was measured using the scores, and magnitude of responses in Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) and Sleep-Wake States Scale (SWS). The heart rate was continuously recorded. Results: The HCr demonstrated a higher magnitude of response on the SWS score from the baseline to the puncture phase than the LCr. Also, the HCr exhibited a higher mean heart rate and minimum heart rate than the LCr in the recovery-resting phase. In addition, the HCr exhibited a higher minimum heart rate from the baseline to the recovery-resting phase than the LCr. Conclusion: The infants exhibiting a high neonatal clinical risk showed high arousal during the puncture procedure and higher physiological reactivity in the recovery phase.

Social support, socioeconomic and clinical risk: comparison between to neighborhoods in a Brazilian upcountry town

The objective of this study was to compare the perceptions of two families living in two different neighborhoods (rated according to risk levels) regarding social support. A questionnaire was designed to assess social support according to the following dimensions: instrumental, emotional, religious, and support from friends, neighbors and family. The sample was comprised as follows: considering the 114 families living in neighborhood 1, 52 families were interviewed; and among the 162 families living in neighborhood 2, 60 families were interviewed. No significant difference was found related to instrumental, religious and emotional support, including the support from relatives among the families from both neighborhoods. The results disagree with the reviewed literature, which indicated a strong association between social support and families living at socioeconomic risk. In conclusion, social support is important for families, regardless of their risk stratification.

The role of myocardial scintigraphy in the assessment of cardiovascular risk in patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease on the waiting list for renal transplantation

The usefulness of stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification in chronic kidney disease remains controversial. We tested the hypothesis that different clinical risk profiles influence the test. We assessed the prognostic value of myocardial scintigraphy in 892 consecutive renal transplant candidates classified into four risk groups: very high (aged epsilon 50 years, diabetes and CV disease), high (two factors), intermediate (one factor) and low (no factor). The incidence of CV events and death was 20 and 18, respectively (median follow-up 22 months). Altered stress testing was associated with an increased probability of cardiovascular events only in intermediate-risk (one risk factor) patients [30.3 versus 10, hazard ratio (HR) 2.37, confidence interval (CI) 1.693.33, P 0.0001]. Low-risk patients did well regardless of scan results. In patients with two or three risk factors, an altered stress test did not add to the already increased CV risk. Myocardial scintigraphy was related to overall mortality only in intermediate-risk patients (HR 2.8, CI 1.55.1, P 0.007). CV risk stratification based on myocardial stress testing is useful only in patients with just one risk factor. Screening may avoid unnecessary testing in 60 of patients, help stratifying for risk of events and provide an explanation for the inconsistent performance of myocardial scintigraphy.