Left ventricular mass in patients with type 2 diabetes is independently associated with central but not peripheral pulse pressure

An increase in left ventricular mass (LVM) occurs in the presence of type 2 diabetes, apparently independent of hypertension (1), but the determinants of this process are unknown. Brachial blood pressure is not representative of that at the ascending aorta (2) because the pressure wave is amplified from central to peripheral arteries. Central blood pressure is probably more clinically important since local pulsatile pressure determines adverse arterial and myocardial remodeling (3,4). Thus, an inaccurate assessment of the contribution of arterial blood pressure to LVM may occur if only brachial blood pressure is taken into consideration. In this study we sought the contribution of central blood pressure (and other interactive factors known to affect wave reflection, e.g., glycemic control and total arterial compliance) to LVM in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. A comparison of sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol

Background and objective: There are no data about the influence of anaesthetics on cardiovascular variables during pressure support ventilation of the lungs through the laryngeal mask airway. We compared propofol, sevoflurane and isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway during pressure support ventilation. Methods: Sixty healthy adults undergoing peripheral musculo-skeletal surgery were randomized for maintenance with sevoflurane end-tidal 29%, isoflurane end-tidal 1.1% or propofol 6 mg kg(-1) h(-1) in oxygen 33% and air. Pressure support ventilation comprised positive end-expiratory pressure set at 5 cmH(2)O, and pressure support set 5 cmH(2)O above positive end-expiratory pressure. Pressure support was initiated when inspiration produced a 2 cmH(2)O reduction in airway pressure. A blinded observer recorded cardiorespiratory variables (heart rate, mean blood pressure, oxygen saturation, air-way occlusion pressure, respiratory rate, expired tidal volume, expired minute volume and end-tidal CO2), adverse events and emergence times. Results: Respiratory rate and minute volume were 10-21% lower, and end-tidal CO2 6-11% higher with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups, but otherwise cardiorespiratory variables were similar among groups. No adverse events occurred in any group. Emergence times were longer with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups (10 vs. 7 vs. 7 min). Conclusion: Lung ventilation is less effective and emergence times are longer with propofol than sevoflurane or isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia during pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. However, these differences are small and of doubtful clinical importance.