Determination of reference values for glucose tolerance, insulin tolerance, and insulin sensitivity tests in clinically normal cats

Objective-To determine reference values and test variability for glucose tolerance tests (GTT), insulin tolerance tests (ITT), and insulin sensitivity tests (IST) in cats, Animals-32 clinically normal cats. Procedure-GTT, ITT, and IST were performed on consecutive days. Tolerance intervals tie, reference values) were calculated as means +/- 2.397 SD for plasma glucose and insulin concentrations, half-life of glucose (T-1/2glucose), rate constants for glucose disappearance (K-glucose and K-itt), and insulin sensitivity index (S-l). Tests were repeated after 6 weeks in 8 cats to determine test variability. Results-Reference values for T-1/2glucose, K-glucose, and fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations during GTT were 45 to 74 minutes, 0.93 to 1.54 %/min, 37 to 104 mg/dl, and 2.8 to 20.6 muU/ml, respectively. Mean values did not differ between the 2 tests. Coefficients of variation for T-1/2glucose, K-glucose, and fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were 20, 20, 11, and 23%, respectively. Reference values for K-itt were 1.14 to 7.3%/min, and for S-l were 0.57 to 10.99 x 10(-4) min/muU/ml. Mean values did not differ between the 2 tests performed 6 weeks apart, Coefficients of variation for K-itt and S-l were 60 and 47%, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-GTT, ITT, and IST can be performed in cats, using standard protocols. Knowledge of reference values and test variability will enable researchers to better interpret test results for assessment of glucose tolerance, pancreatic beta -cell function, and insulin sensitivity in cats.

Quality of care of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Measurement and improvement of quality of care is a priority issue in health care. Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a high-risk population whose care, if shown to be suboptimal on the basis of available research evidence, may benefit from quality improvement interventions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital care for patients with ACS, using explicit quality indicators. Methods: Retrospective case note review was undertaken of 397 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between 1 October 2000 and 17 April 2001. The main out-come measures were 12 process-of-care quality indicators, calculated as either: (i) the proportion of all patients who received specific interventions or (ii) the proportion of ideal patients who received -specific interventions (i.e. patients with clear indi-cations and lacking contraindications). Results: Quality indicators with values above 80% included: (i) patient selection for thrombolysis (100%) and discharge prescription of beta-blockers (84%), (ii) antiplatelet agents (94%) and (iii) lipid-lowering agents (82%). Indicators with values between 50% and 80% included: (i) timely per-formance of electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission (61%), (ii) early coronary angiography (75%), (iii) measurement of serum lipids (71%) and (iv) discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (73%). Indicators with values <50% included: (i) timely administration of thrombolysis (35%), (ii) non-invasive risk assessment (23%) and (ii) formal in-hospital and post-hospital cardiac rehabilitation (47% and 7%, respectively). Conclusion: There were delays in performing ECG and administering thrombolysis to patients who presented to emergency departments with ACS. Improvement is warranted in use of non-invasive procedures for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization as well as use of serum lipid measurements, ACE inhibitors and cardiac rehabilitation.