Spot urine porphyrins/creatinine ratio profile of healthy Brazilian individuals adjusted for personal habits

Changes in urinary porphyrin excretion may be the result of hereditary causes and/or from environmental or occupational exposure. The objective of this study was to measure the amount of some porphyrins in spot urine samples obtained from volunteers randomly selected from a healthy adult population of São Paulo with a sensitive HPLC method and to estimate normal ranges for a non-exposed population. Spot urine samples were collected from 126 subjects (both genders, 18 to 65 years old) not occupationally exposed to porphyrinogenic agents. Porphyrin fractions were separated on RP-18 HPLC column eluted with a methanol/ammonium acetate buffer gradient, pH 4.0, and measured fluorometrically (excitation 405 nm/emission 620 nm). The amount of porphyrins was corrected for urinary creatinine excretion. Only 8-carboxyl (uro) and 4-carboxyl (copro) porphyrins were quantified as µg/g creatinine. Data regarding age, gender, occupational activities, smoking and drinking habits were analyzed by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Uroporphyrin results did not differ significantly between the subgroups studied. Copro and uro + copro porphyrins were significantly different for smokers (P = 0.008) and occupational activities (P = 0.004). With respect to alcohol consumption, only men drinking >20 g/week showed significant differences in the levels of copro (P = 0.022) and uro + copro porphyrins (P = 0.012). The 2.5-97.5th percentile limit values, excluding those for subjects with an alcohol drinking habit >20 g/week, were 0-20.8, 11.7-93.1, and 15.9-102.9 µg/g creatinine for uro, copro and uro + copro porphyrins, respectively. These percentile limit values can be proposed as a first attempt to provide urinary porphyrin reference values for our population, serving for an early diagnosis of porphyrinopathies or as biomarkers of exposure to porphyrinogenic agents.

Comparative efficacy and safety of the left versus right radial approach for percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis including 6870 patients

The radial approach is widely used in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We conducted a meta-analysis of published results on the efficacy and safety of the left and right radial approaches in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures. A systematic search of reference databases was conducted, and data from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 6870 participants were analyzed. The left radial approach was associated with significant reductions in fluoroscopy time [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.19 to -0.09; P<0.00001] and contrast volume (SMD=-0.07, 95%CI=-0.12 to -0.02; P=0.009). There were no significant differences in rate of procedural failure of the left and the right radial approaches [risk ratios (RR)=0.98; 95%CI=0.77-1.25; P=0.88] or procedural time (SMD=-0.05, 95%CI=0.17-0.06; P=0.38). Tortuosity of the subclavian artery (RR=0.27, 95%CI=0.14-0.50; P<0.0001) was reported more frequently with the right radial approach. A greater number of catheters were used with the left than with the right radial approach (SMD=0.25, 95%CI=0.04-0.46; P=0.02). We conclude that the left radial approach is as safe as the right radial approach, and that the left radial approach should be recommended for use in percutaneous coronary procedures, especially in percutaneous coronary angiograms.

Has social justice any legitimacy in Kant's theory of right? The empirical conditions of the legal state as a civil union

This paper aims at shedding light on an obscure point in Kant's theory of the state. It discusses whether Kant's rational theory of the state recognises the fact that certain exceptional social situations, such as the extreme poverty of some parts of the population, could request institutional state support in order to guarantee the attainment of a minimum threshold of civil independence. It has three aims: 1) to show that Kant's Doctrine of Right can offer solutions for the complex relation between economics and politics in our present time; 2) to demonstrate the claim that Kant embraces a pragmatic standpoint when he tackles the social concerns of the state, and so to refute the idea that he argues for an abstract conception of politics; and 3) to suggest that a non-paternalistic theory of rights is not necessarily incompatible with the basic tenets of a welfare state.