The PROP1 2-Base Pair Deletion Is a Common Cause of Combined Pituitary Hormone Deficiency

Combined pituitary hormone deficiency (CPHD) has an incidence of approximately 1 in 8000 births. Although the proportion of familial CPHD cases is unknown, about 10% have an affected first degree relative. We have recently reported three mutations in the PROP1 gene that cause CPHD in human subjects. We report here the frequency of one of these mutations, a 301–302delAG deletion in exon 2 of PROP1, in 10 independently ascertained CPHD kindreds and 21 sporadic cases of CPHD from 8 different countries. Our results show that 55% (11 of 20) of PROP1 alleles have the 301–302delAG deletion in familial CPHD cases. Interestingly, although only 12% (5 of 42) of the PROP1 alleles of our 21 sporadic cases were 301–302delAG, the frequency of this allele (in 20 of 21 of the sporadic subjects given TRH stimulation tests) was 50% (3 of 6) and 0% (0 of 34) in the CPHD cases with pituitary and hypothalamic defects, respectively. Using whole genome radiation hybrid analysis, we localized the PROP1 gene to the distal end of chromosome 5q and identified a tightly linked polymorphic marker, D5S408, which can be used in segregation studies. Analysis of this marker in affected subjects with the 301–302delAG deletion suggests that rather than being inherited from a common founder, the 301–302delAG may be a recurring mutation.

The PROP1 2-Base Pair Deletion Is a Common Cause of Combined Pituitary Hormone Deficiency

Combined pituitary hormone deficiency (CPHD) has an incidence of approximately 1 in 8000 births. Although the proportion of familial CPHD cases is unknown, about 10% have an affected first degree relative. We have recently reported three mutations in the PROP1 gene that cause CPHD in human subjects. We report here the frequency of one of these mutations, a 301-302delAG deletion in exon 2 of PROP1, in 10 independently ascertained CPHD kindreds and 21 sporadic cases of CPHD from 8 different countries. Our results show that 55% (11 of 20) of PROP1 alleles have the 301-302delAG deletion in familial CPHD cases. Interestingly, although only 12% (5 of 42) of the PROP1 alleles of our 21 sporadic cases were 301-302delAG, the frequency of this allele (in 20 of 21 of the sporadic subjects given TRH stimulation tests) was 50% (3 of 6) and 0% (0 of 34) in the CPHD cases with pituitary and hypothalamic defects, respectively. Using whole genome radiation hybrid analysis, we localized the PROP1 gene to the distal end of chromosome 5q and identified a tightly linked polymorphic marker, D5S408, which can be used in segregation studies. Analysis of this marker in affected subjects with the 301-302delAG deletion suggests that rather than being inherited from a common founder, the 301-302delAG may be a recurring mutation.

Variation in Haemodynamic Monitoring for Major Surgery in European Nations: Secondary Analysis of the EuSOS Dataset

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.