Congenital heart diseases (CHD) can be associated with liver dysfunction. The cause for liver impairment can result out of a wide spectrum of different causes, including liver congestion, hypoxemia or low cardiac output. Fortunately, most CHD show a good long-term outcome from a cardiac perspective, but great attention should be paid on non-cardiac health problems that develop frequently in patients suffering from CHD. The treatment of liver dysfunction in CHD requires a close multidisciplinary management in a vulnerable patient collective. Unfortunately, structured recommendations on the management of liver dysfunction in patients with CHD are scarce. The objective of this review is to provide insights on the pathophysiology and etiologies of liver dysfunction as one of the most relevant non-cardiac problems related to CHD. Furthermore, we advise here on the management of liver disease in CHD with special attention on assessment of liver dysfunction, management of portal hypertension as well as on surveillance and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A multidisciplinary perspective may help to optimize morbidity and mortality in the long-term course in these patients. However, as evidence is low in many aspects, we encourage the scientific community to perform prospective studies to gain more insights in the treatment of liver dysfunction in patients with CHD.
Occupational exposure to patients with COVID-19 is a stress factor. The aim of this study was to assess gender differences in anger among medical hospital staff. Methods: N = 78 hospital employees with direct or indirect contact to patients with COVID-19 completed State-Trait Inventory-2. Results: Female personnel showed higher scores in the main ''trait anger'' scale and its subscale ''anger temperament,'' whereas ''anger control-out'' was significant lower. Direct patient contact had no influence. Conclusion: More specific training for female hospital staff could achieve health-related equity. Focusing on anger as a leading indicator could lead to better prevention and self-monitoring. Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04368312).
Introduction: Patients with diabetes mellitus are known to carry an increased risk for surgical site infections and perioperative complications. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an established treatment option in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death especially with an increased risk for infection over time. Methods and Results: Forty-eight patients (mean age = 55.0 ± 21.3 years, 31.3% patients with diabetes mellitus, 75% male) who underwent consecutive subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator surgery between February 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Overall adverse events including relevant bleeding complications, any surgical wound problems and infections requiring reoperation or device malfunction were evaluated as primary combined safety endpoint. Patients with diabetes mellitus tended to be older with a higher body mass index compared to non-diabetes mellitus. Procedure duration and postsurgery hospital days were not different in diabetes mellitus versus non-diabetes mellitus patients. Analysis of the primary combined endpoint showed no significant difference but a trend towards higher event rates in the diabetes mellitus group (diabetes mellitus vs non-diabetes mellitus: 20% vs 12.1%, p = 0.119). Conclusion: Diabetes mellitus is a frequent and relevant variable in patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation represented by 31.3% in this consecutive cohort. Our results suggest that diabetes mellitus is not associated with a prolonged hospital stay or increased rate of periprocedural adverse events.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.