| 1. |
- Sa'idu, H., et al.
(author)
-
Influence of systolic blood pressure on outcomes in Nigerians with peripartum cardiomyopathy
- 2022
-
In: Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 1119-3077 .- 2229-7731. ; 25:12, s. 1963-1968
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The relationship between blood pressure (BP) trajectories and outcomes in patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is not clear.Aim: The study aimed to assess the clinical features and outcomes (all-cause mortality and unrecovered left ventricular [LV] systolic function) of PPCM patients grouped according to their baseline systolic BP (SBP).Patients and Methods: PPCM patients presenting to 14 tertiary hospitals in Nigeria were consecutively recruited between June 2017 and March 2018 and then followed up till March 2019. SBP at first presentation was used to categorize the patients into seven groups: <90, 90-99, 100-109, 110-119, 120-129, 130-139, and ≥140 mmHg. Unrecovered LV systolic function was defined as echocardiographic LV ejection fraction (LVEF) below 55% at the last profiling.Results: Two hundred and twenty-seven patients were recruited and followed up for a median of 18 months. Of these, 4.0% had <90 mmHg, 16.3% had 90-99 mmHg, 24.7% had 100-109 mmHg, 24.7% had 110-119 mmHg, 18.5% had 120-129 mmHg, 7.5% had 130-139 mmHg, and 4.4% had ≥140 mmHg of SBP at presentation. The highest frequency of all-cause mortality was recorded among patients with SBP ≤90 mmHg (30.8%) followed by those with 90-99 mmHg (20.5%) (P = 0.076), while unrecovered LV systolic function did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.659). In a Cox proportional regression model for all-cause mortality, SBP <90 mmHg had a hazard ratio (HR) of 4.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-10.78, P = 0.006), LVEF had an HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.98, P = 0.003, B = 0.06%), and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor and/or β-receptor blockers had an HR of 1.71 (95% CI 0.93-3.16, P = 0.085). However, SBP was not associated with LV function recovery.Conclusion: In our cohort of PPCM patients, one-fifth was hypotensive at presentation. SBP <90 mmHg at presentation was associated with a four-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality during a median follow-up of 18 months.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gujar, A. N., et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of biochemical markers of bone metabolism between conventional labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances
- 2020
-
In: Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. - 1119-3077. ; 23:4, s. 568-573
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: The applied orthodontic force causes remodeling of the periodontium through the selective release of cytokines causing resorption of bone, enabling controlled movement of the tooth. This study compared the cytokine profile between patients treated with conventional labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances. Patients and Methods: The study included 80 patients in need of orthodontic treatment, out of which 40 patients were treated by the labial fixed appliance and 40 by the lingual fixed appliance. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) specimens were gathered from both the groups using a microcapillary pipette. The samples were collected at the beginning of the treatment and after 21 days. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed to evaluate the cytokine levels. Results: Interleukin (IL)-1 alpha, 1 beta, 2, 8, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) levels were significantly high (P < 0.001) in GCF of participants treated with conventional labial fixed appliance. IL-1 alpha, 1 beta, 2, 6, 8, and TNF-alpha levels were significantly high (P < 0.001) in GCF of participants treated by the lingual fixed appliance. The concentrations of TNF-alpha and IL-1 beta were increased higher than other cytokines in both the treatment groups. Conclusion: Overall, the lingual fixed appliance had higher cytokine levels than a labial fixed appliance. Analyzing the GCF cytokine levels during orthodontic treatment could provide an ideal platform for monitoring the progress of the treatment.
|
|
