Summary:Background: Nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is a usually underdiagnosed and potentially treatable cause of altered awareness in the elderly. To assess etiologies, associations with other medical problems, and prognosis of NCSE in a population aged >75 years we performed a nested casecontrol study.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical manifestations and EEG findings in 19 consecutive elderly patients (mean age 83.3 years) presenting with NCSE and compared them with 34 elderly patients (mean age 83.3 years) with altered mental status but without EEG evidence of NCSE. The variables compared included brain lesions on CT or MRI, number of concomitant chronic active diseases, previous neurological disorders, acute medical problems, the use and withdrawal of medications, and outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test, t-test, Fisher's exact two-tailed test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test.Results: The etiology of NCSE was epilepsy in 2, acute medical disorders in 14, and a cryptogenic cause in 4. The NCSE group had a more frequent history of epilepsy, 35% versus 8.8% (p = 0.028); tramadol use, 31% versus 0% (p = 0.00151); longer hospitalization, 25 days versus 7 days (p = 0.0004); and unfavorable outcome, 50% versus 5.8% (p = 0.00031). No significant differences were found in the other variables. Unfavorable outcome was associated with a higher number of comorbidities (>2) and to a severely altered mental status.Conclusions: NCSE is a serious cause of altered mental status in the elderly. Although its direct role in brain damage is controversial, elderly patients with NCSE have higher morbidity and worst prognosis than those with altered mental status without NCSE.

BackgroundDVT is the main cause of death in hospitalized patients and thromboprophylaxis is the only way to prevent these deaths. International recommendations suggested that active monitoring of DVT/PE prophylaxis can improve the efficacy in Hospitals.MethodsWe performed a cohort study in three consecutives periods to evaluate DVT prophylaxis in 388 adults hospitalized in a General Hospital.Results85% of the population had high risk factors for DVT. Thromboprophylaxis was in accordance with local and International guidelines (ACCP 2008) in 72.7% and 86% of the patients respectively. No significant difference could be founded between clinical and surgical patients. One every 10 patients received higher prophylaxis than suggested by guidelines and two out of ten received deficient or no prophylaxis. The worst 2 groups of patients were those with moderate/low risk of DVT and the group with a contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis. We observed a progressive improvement of the DVT prophylaxis in the 3 periods of evaluation.ConclusionsAlthough the rate of recommended thromboprophylaxis is higher than many other reports in the region we still have some areas where we need to improve. Regular audits like these are very helpful to find out what specific areas of the hospital needs some careful attention in order to have a better quality of assistance.

In this multicenter study, mean TTR values in patients with AF under VKA were similar to those in international therapeutic clinical trials (55%-65%). Marked variations among institutions were observed and, although average results obtained were high, one third of the patients exhibited a TTR below 60%. This cutoff value is conservative according to current recommendations, and guidelines suggest that when management with VKA cannot be improved, patients should be switched to direct oral anticoagulants. The addition of TTR calculation to clinical practice may help improve the quality of oral anticoagulation in patients with AF, thus improving anticoagulation outcomes.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication following major abdominal surgery. The use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) to prevent thrombotic events in these patients is a common and well documented practice. However, there is some controversy surrounding the duration of the prophylaxis, as it has been suggested that the risk persists for several weeks after surgery. The objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically review the clinical studies that compared safety and efficacy of extended use of LMWH (for three to four weeks after surgery) versus conventional in-hospital prophylaxis. An electronic data base search was performed. Only randomized, controlled studies were eligible. Data on the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), VTE and bleeding were extracted. Only three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The indication for surgery was neoplastic disease in 70.6% (780/1104) of patients. The administration of extended LMWH prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of VTE, 5.93% (23/388) versus 13.6% (55/405), RR 0.44 (CI 95% 0.28 - 0.7); DVT 5.93% (23/388) versus 12.9% (52/402), RR 0.46 (CI 95% 0.29 - 0.74); proximal DVT 1% (4/388) versus 4.72% (19/402), RR 0.24 (CI 95% 0.09 - 0.67). We found no significant difference in major or minor bleeding between the two groups: 3.85% (21/545) in the extended thrombo-prophylaxis (ETP) group versus 3.48% (19/559) in the conventional prophylaxis group; RR 1.12 (CI 95% 0.61 - 2.06). There was no heterogeneity between the studies. We conclude that ETP with LMWH should be considered as a safe and useful strategy to prevent VTE in high-risk major abdominal surgery.

No abstract