No abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the use of propinox hydrochloride and scopolamine hydrochloride in patients presenting abdominal colic (abdominal pain), in * Corresponding author. H. Rzetelna et al. 475 terms of treatment efficacy and tolerability. Material & Methods: This was an analytical, retrospective, comparative study based on hospital records of outpatients treated at Serviço de Clínica Médica do Hospital das Clínicas Costantino Otaviano (HCTCO) and at Santa Casa de Misericórdia do Rio de Janeiro, from 1988-1998. Subjects were divided into two groups: patients from Group 1 were treated with propinox hydrochloride, while patients from Group 2 were treated with scopolamine hydrochloride. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 5.0. For comparison of categorical variables, we used the chi-squared or Fisher's test, while continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA or the Student's T test. Results: A total of 1042 subjects were included, of which 525 were allocated to Group 1 and 517 to Group 2. Mean treatment duration was 9.166 days (±4.208) in Group 1 and 8.795 days (±5.052) in Group 2, with no statistically significant difference in treatment duration between the two groups (p = 0.198). All subjects in Group 1 were treated with propinox 10 mg (2 coated tablets, three times per day) while all subjects in Group 2 were treated with scopolamine hydrochloride 10 mg (2 coated tablets, three times per day). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in weight, BMI, heart rate, and respiratory rate at pre-and post-treatment; with the exception of higher post-treatment systolic blood pressure in Group 1, blood pressure measures also remained homogenous. Adverse events were reported among both treatment groups with no significant between-group difference in incidence (p = 0566). At pretreatment, pain intensity was more severe in Group 1 (p = 0.0257), while at post-treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups (p = 0.895). There was a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity within both treatment groups (χ 2 = 631.4; df = 3; p < 0.0001 for Group 1 and χ 2 = 554.3; df = 3; p < 0.0001 for Group 2). Conclusion: The results obtained in this study indicate a therapeutic equivalence between propinox hydrochloride and scopolamine hydrochloride. Both treatments demonstrated good efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of abdominal colic pain, in the population evaluated.

Introduction Our group has recently validated and published a new score - KAsH score. KAsH consists of a continuous, multiplicative score based on 4 simple clinical variables available at first medical contact, proven to be a robust predictor of in-hospital mortality and all-cause mortality at 1 year follow-up in patients with myocardial infarction, putting it next to other well established risk scores. However, the role of KAsH in patients with myocardial injury (Mi), a largely uncharacterized group in the literature, remains unknown. Purpose We aim to assess the predictive power of KAsH in patients with myocardial injury (Mi), regarding in-hospital mortality and at 1 year follow-up. Methods Prospective registry of 250 patients admitted consecutively through the emergency department from January 2018 onward, with higher than P99th high-sensitive troponin assay. The kit used was Roche's Elecsys hsSTAT, and the P99th appointed by the manufacturer was 14 ng/L. All patients with chronic kidney disease ClCr&lt;15ml/min and myocardial infarction, were excluded from the analysis. We were left with 236 patients diagnosed with Mi. KAsH = (Killip Kimbal × Age × Heart Rate) / Systolic BP We used a simplified Killip classification: without heart failure (1 point), with heart failure (2 points) and in shock (3 points). We assessed the score's association to mortality and its predictive value through ROC curves and their respective area under the curve (AUC). Results Both Killip and KAsH had a significant and positive association with in-hospital mortality (KK: p=0.02; KAsH: p&lt;0.001) and cumulative mortality (KK: p=0.002; KAsH: p=0.008). In multivariate analysis, KAsH score as a continuous variable proved to be an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (p=0.004) but not KK classification (p=0.96). We then categorized KAsH in its 4 different strata (1–4). Multivariate analysis indentified categorized KAsH as the only significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 4.1, CI 2.1–8.1, p&lt;0.001), with the predictive power of KAsH being even mildly superior (AUCs: KAsHcont 0.767, KAsHcat 0.743, KK 0.685). However, the same trend was not observed during follow-up, as none of them were significant predictors of mortality (all p&gt;0.1). Conclusions KAsH seems to maintain its in-hospital predictive value even in patients with Mi. To our knowledge, this is the first study that tries to apply risk scores and stratification tools to such a heterogeneous group of patients. By comprising hemodynamic variables, KAsH may actually be a better risk stratification tool than just the severity of heart failure on admission. However, unlike previously proven in myocardial infarction (MI), KAsH score and its hemodynamic variables do not seem to justify the high mortality on the long run behind these patients. More studies will be needed to address the complex causes behind long-term mortality of Mi patients. KASH table graph Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

No abstract

Editorial da II Edição do Simpósio Academia na Serra, em uma parceria das a Academia Nacional de Medicina (ANM), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz) e Faculdade de Medicina de Petrópolis(FMP)