Guidance for diagnosis and treatment of acute angioedema in the emergency department: consensus statement by a panel of Italian experts.

Angioedema attacks, characterized by the transient swelling of the skin and mucosae, are a frequent cause of visits to the emergency department. Swellings of the oral cavity, tongue, or larynx can result in life-threatening airway obstruction, while abdominal attacks can cause severe pain and often lead to unnecessary surgery. The underlying pathophysiologic process resulting in increased vascular permeability and plasma extravasation is mediated by vasoactive molecules, most commonly histamine and bradykinin. Based on the mediator involved, distinct angioedema forms can be recognized, calling for distinct therapeutic approaches. Prompt recognition is challenging for the emergency physician. The low awareness among physicians of the existence of rare forms of angioedema with different aetiologies and pathogenesis, considerably adds to the problem. Also poorly appreciated by emergency personnel may be the recently introduced bradykinin-targeted treatments. The main objective of this consensus statement is to provide guidance for the management of acute angioedema in the emergency department, from presentation to discharge or hospital admission, with a focus on identifying patients in whom new treatments may prevent invasive intervention.

Exploring the gap between National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines and clinical practice in secondary care: results of a cross-sectional study involving over 10 000 patients followed in different specialty settings across Italy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate implementation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control recommendations in secondary care and explore key points in the decisional workup. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a nationwide survey of secondary-care outpatients (n=11,124), we studied prevalence/predictors of (1) LDL-C value availability; (2) ongoing treatment with statins; (3) achievement of US National Cholesterol Education Program III target LDL-C values. Agreement between US National Cholesterol Education Program III risk category and physicians' personal risk assessments was also studied. LDL-C values were available for 78% evaluable patients; 71% of the patients with dyslipidema were undergoing treatment with statins; 34% patients undergoing treatment had target LDL-C values. At regression analysis, non-availability of LDL-C values was predicted by absence of diabetes, presence of normotension, and advancing age; lack of statins treatment by female sex, diabetes, overweight and northern location (southern location predicted treatment); non-achievement of target LDL-C values by age, diabetes, attending a diabetic clinic, cigarette smoking, history of cardiovascular disease, and taking less than six pills per day. Physicians provided underestimates of patients' risk (39% high-risk patients were rated as intermediate-risk patients and a further 10% as low-risk patients). CONCLUSION: Suboptimal prevention practice seems to be associated with various factors acting at different levels within the complex process running from individual risk-level ascertainment to LDL-C target achievement. Multicomponent interventions that target the different key steps need to be considered.

Current presentation and management of heart failure in cardiology and internal medicine hospital units: a tale of two worlds--the TEMISTOCLE study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose pf the current article is to describe the clinical profile, use of resources, management and outcome in a population of real-world inpatients with heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: With a prospective, cross-sectional survey on acute hospital admissions, we evaluated the overall and provider-related differences in patient characteristics, diagnostic work-up, treatment and inhospital outcome of 2127 patients with heart failure admitted to 167 cardiology departments and 250 internal medicine departments between February 14 and 25, 2000. Patients admitted to cardiology units were younger (56.3% >70 years vs 76.2%, P <.0001), had more severe symptoms (NYHA IV 35% vs 29%, P =.00014), and more often underwent evaluation of ventricular function (89.3% vs 54.8%, P <.0001) and coronary angiography (7.5% vs 0.9%, P <.0001) than those admitted to medical units. Moreover, they were more often prescribed beta-blockers (17.8% vs 8.7%, P <.0001). However, prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (78.7% vs 81.5%, P = not significant [NS]) and inhospital mortality (5.2% vs 5.9%, P = NS) were similar. A 6-month follow-up visit was performed in 56.4% of cases (68.2% of cardiology vs 49.4% of medicine patients, P <.0001); 6-month readmission (43.7% vs 45.4%, P = NS) and mortality (13.9% vs 16.7%, P = NS) rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure admitted to cardiology and internal medicine units represent 2 clearly different populations. In both groups, diagnostic procedures and evidence-based treatments, such as beta-blockers, appeared to be underused, and there was a lack of structured follow-up, as well as a poor 6-month prognosis.