Brain natriuretic peptide: Disease marker or more in cardiovascular medicine?

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is predominantly a cardiac ventricular hormone that promotes natriuresis and diuresis, inhibits the renin-anglotensin-aldosterone axis, and is a vasodilator. Plasma BNP levels are raised in essential hypertension, and more so in left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and heart failure. Plasma BNP levels are also elevated in ischemic heart disease. Attempts have been made to use plasma BNP levels as a marker of LV dysfunction, but these have shown that plasma BNP levels are probably not sensitive enough to replace echocardiography in the diagnosis of LV dysfunction. Pericardial BNP or N-BNP may be more suitable markers of LV dysfunction. Plasma BNP levels are also elevated in right ventricular dysfunction, pregnancy-induced hypertension, aortic stenosis, age, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cardiac allograft rejection and cavopulmonary connection, and BNP may have an important pathophysiological role in some or all of these conditions. Clinical trials have demonstrated the natriuretic, diuretic and vasodilator effects, as well as inhibitory effects on renin and aldosterone of infused synthetic human BNP (nesiritide) in healthy humans. BNP infusion improves LV function in patients with congestive heart failure via a vasodilating and a prominent natriuretic effect. BNP infusion is useful for the treatment of decompensated congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization. The clinical potential of BNP is limited as it is a peptide and requires infusion. Drugs that modify the effects of BNP are furthering our understanding of the pathophysiological role and clinical potential of BNP. Increasing the effects of BNP may be a useful therapeutic approach in heart failure involving LV dysfunction. The levels of plasma BNP are increased by blockers, cardiac glycosides and vasopeptidase inhibitors, and this may contribute to the usefulness of these agents in heart failure. (C) 2001 Prous Science. All rights reserved.

A case report of acute heart failure caused by a patient delaying taking his diuretic medication

Acute heart failure is a life-threatening medical emergency, most commonly occurring as an immediate or delayed complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or resulting from severe hypertension or valvular defects (stenosis or incompetence). Occasionally it is caused by patients' non-compliance with medication orders. In this case the patient had a history of three previous AMIs, controlled hypertension, and controlled congestive heart failure (CHF) for which he took two 40mg frusemide tablets (a very potent oral diuretic) each morning. Because he had experienced bladder discomfort during the latter stages of previous appointments he decided to delay taking the diuretic until after his appointment an acute heart failure ensued.

Chest pain in the dental surgery: A brief review and practical points in diagnosis and management

If a dental patient develops chest pain it must always be managed promptly and properly, i.e., the practitioner immediately stops the procedure and, being aware of the patients's medical history, questions the patient regarding the nature of the pain to help determine the likely diagnosis. It will most likely be a manifestation of coronary artery disease (synonymous with ischaemic heart disease), i.e., angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction, most usually the former. Angina will usually resolve with proper intervention whereas up to about one-half of myocardial infarction cases will develop cardiac arrest, mostly in the first few hours, and this will be fatal in up to two-thirds of cases. As health care professions, dental practitioners have an inherent duty of care to be able to initiate appropriate care if such a medical emergency occurs.

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.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.