Optimal Cut-Off Value for Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) Index of Insulin-Resistance in a Population of Patients Admitted Electively in a Portuguese Cardiology Ward

INTRODUCTION: Insulin resistance is the pathophysiological key to explain metabolic syndrome. Although clearly useful, the Homeostasis Model Assessment index (an insulin resistance measurement) hasn't been systematically applied in clinical practice. One of the main reasons is the discrepancy in cut-off values reported in different populations. We sought to evaluate in a Portuguese population the ideal cut-off for Homeostasis Model Assessment index and assess its relationship with metabolic syndrome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected a cohort of individuals admitted electively in a Cardiology ward with a BMI < 25 Kg/m2 and no abnormalities in glucose metabolism (fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL and no diabetes). The 90th percentile of the Homeostasis Model Assessment index distribution was used to obtain the ideal cut-off for insulin resistance. We also selected a validation cohort of 300 individuals (no exclusion criteria applied). RESULTS: From 7 000 individuals, and after the exclusion criteria, there were left 1 784 individuals. The 90th percentile for Homeostasis Model Assessment index was 2.33. In the validation cohort, applying that cut-off, we have 49.3% of individuals with insulin resistance. However, only 69.9% of the metabolic syndrome patients had insulin resistance according to that cut-off. By ROC curve analysis, the ideal cut-off for metabolic syndrome is 2.41. Homeostasis Model Assessment index correlated with BMI (r = 0.371, p < 0.001) and is an independent predictor of the presence of metabolic syndrome (OR 19.4, 95% CI 6.6 - 57.2, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Our study showed that in a Portuguese population of patients admitted electively in a Cardiology ward, 2.33 is the Homeostasis Model Assessment index cut-off for insulin resistance and 2.41 for metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION: Homeostasis Model Assessment index is directly correlated with BMI and is an independent predictor of metabolic syndrome.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.

Diagnosic Classification: Results from a Clinical Experience of Three Years with DC: 0–3

Infancy and early childhood are characterized by a dynamic and ever changing process. Since the beginning of their clinical work at the Infancy Unit, the authors were concerned with individual assessment and the questions about the role played by parents as well as by babies in pathology and intervention.In this article, the authors begin with a description of the path that led them to the selection of DC 0–3 as a diagnostic classification system and how this has been instrumental in helping them to better define infant psychopathology and guide them in treatment orientations. Next, they present the results of the applicationof Axis I and II of DC: 0–3 in their clinical population in the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The objectives of this study were to learn more about the distribution of mental disorders in a clinical population up tofour years of age. The authors attempted to separate infants at risk for developing psychic disorders from those presenting current psychopathology as well as the possible influence of demographic features on this distribution, to define a target population and design adapted therapeutic measures. The identification of these objectives provides the rationale for the use of a diagnostic tool, like DC: 0–3, which is essential to plan clinical activity, to evaluate therapeutic efficacy, and to develop specific programs.