Search

Copyright of Saúde Coletiva is the property of MPM Comunicacao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The high diversity of grapevine varieties in Portugal is well known. In several municipalities in the northeast of Portugal at the beginning of the last century, more than one hundred different varieties were recognized. Currently are authorized for wine production with Protected Designation of Origin "Trás-os-Montes" 33 varieties and "Douro"/"Porto" 110, comprising 115 different varieties. Nevertheless, despite this huge diversity, only 22 (19.1%) have representativity in these wine regions higher than 1%, corresponding to 84,2% ("Trás-os-Montes") and 89.0% ("Douro"/"Porto") of the total vineyard area. Prospection and identification of grapevine material in ancient vineyards in these wine regions is of utmost importance to prevent its disappearance. Thirteen old vineyards, aged between 50 and over 100 years, were studied, comprising a total of 456 plants. Genotyping by SSR and SNP markers allowed the identification of 88 different molecular profiles, including 15 unknown genotypes. In fact, 18 genotypes were detected in only one plant which emphasizes the urgency in their preservation. Moreover, chlorotype diversity was also analyzed. Four chlorotypes (A, B, C and D) were detected: chlorotype A was the most frequent, followed by chlorotype D. Chlorotypes B and C were only present in four foreign grapevine varieties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The new European guidelines on diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases propose that the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore should be used to evaluate the risk of diabetes mellitus and that diabetes mellitus screening in coronary artery disease patients should be based on fasting glucose and HbA1c. The 2 hour oral glucose tolerance test, recommended for all pts in the previous guidelines, is now only recommended for 'inconclusive' cases. We aimed to evaluate this new strategy., Material and Methods: Fasting glucose, HbA1c and glucose tolerance test (75 g, 2h) were prospectively evaluated in a consecutive group of pts with coronary artery disease. ADA criteria (both glucose tolerance test and HbA1c) were used to define diabetes mellitus and pre-diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus risk was evaluated according to the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore., Results: A total of 135 patients were included (mean age 62.3 +/- 13.1 years, 99 males). Glucose tolerance test and HbA1c together diagnosed 18 (13.3%) new cases of diabetes mellitus and 77 (57.0%) patients with pre-diabetes mellitus. Fasting glucose + HbA1c (guidelines strategy) identified 12/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 66.7%; negative predictive value 95.1%; Kappa 0.78; p < 0.0001) and 83/95 patients with glucose anomalies (pre- diabetes mellitus + diabetes mellitus) (Sens 87.4%; negative predictive value 76.9%). Performing glucose tolerance test in the 29 patients with an elevated FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore would allow identifying 15/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 83.3%; negative predictive value 97.5%; Kappa 0.85; p < 0.0001) and 86/95 patients with glucose anomalies (Sens 90.5%; negative predictive value 81.6%)., Discussion: Although this strategy improved the screening accuracy, one in each six patients with diabetes mellitus would still remain undiagnosed, as compared to measuring HbA1c and performing an glucose tolerance test in all patients., Conclusion: Using the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore to select candidates to additional glucose tolerance test improves the accuracy for identifying diabetic patients, as compared with fasting glucose + HbA1c alone. However, 1/6 patients diabetes mellitus is still left undiagnosed with this strategy proposed by the current guidelines.

Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation is the treatment of choice in patients with accessory pathways (APs) and Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Endocardial catheter ablation has limitations, including the inability to map and ablate intramural or subepicardial APs. Some of these difficulties can be overcome using an epicardial approach performed through the epicardial venous system or by percutaneous catheterisation of the pericardial space. When a suspected left inferior or infero-paraseptal AP is refractory to ablation or no early activation is found at the endocardium, a transvenous approach via the coronary sinus is warranted because such epicardial pathways can be in close proximity to the coronary venous system. Associated congenital abnormalities, such as right atrial appendage, right ventricle diverticulum, coronary sinus diverticulum and absence of coronary sinus ostium, may also hamper a successful outcome. Percutaneous epicardial subxiphoid approach should be considered when endocardial or transvenous mapping and ablation fails. Epicardial mapping may be successful. It can guide and enhance the effectiveness of endocardial ablation. The finding of no epicardial early activation leads to a more persistent new endocardial attempt. When both endocardial and epicardial ablation are unsuccessful, open-chest surgery is the only option to eliminate the AP., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.