Additional hemodynamic measurements with an esophageal Doppler monitor: a preliminary report of compliance, force, kinetic energy, and afterload in the clinical setting.

The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is a minimally-invasive hemodynamic device which evaluates both cardiac output (CO), and fluid status, by estimating stroke volume (SV) and calculating heart rate (HR). The measurement of these parameters is based upon a continuous and accurate approximation of distal thoracic aortic blood flow. Furthermore, the peak velocity (PV) and mean acceleration (MA), of aortic blood flow at this anatomic location, are also determined by the EDM. The purpose of this preliminary report is to examine additional clinical hemodynamic calculations of: compliance (C), kinetic energy (KE), force (F), and afterload (TSVR(i)). These data were derived using both velocity-based measurements, provided by the EDM, as well as other contemporaneous physiologic parameters. Data were obtained from anesthetized patients undergoing surgery or who were in a critical care unit. A graphical inspection of these measurements is presented and discussed with respect to each patient's clinical situation. When normalized to each of their initial values, F and KE both consistently demonstrated more discriminative power than either PV or MA. The EDM offers additional applications for hemodynamic monitoring. Further research regarding the accuracy, utility, and limitations of these parameters is therefore indicated.

Comparison of the Effects of Pioglitazone versus Placebo when Given in Addition to Standard Insulin Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Requiring Hemodialysis: Results from the PIOren Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and advanced kidney disease are usually treated with insulin. However, the prolonged pharmacokinetic insulin profile in patients with delayed renal insulin elimination impairs a successful therapy. Due to its hepatic metabolism, pioglitazone is a potential candidate for additional administration. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pioglitazone versus placebo on total daily insulin requirements and several pleiotropic factors in type 2 diabetes patients requiring hemodialysis. METHODS: The effect of pioglitazone (30 mg) versus placebo was explored in this prospective, randomized, double-blind parallel multicenter phase II study analyzing data from 36 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus currently under hemodialysis (25 male, 11 female, aged 69.2 ± 7.9 years, baseline HbA1c 7.6 ± 0.9%). The most important efficacy parameters collected before dialysis and after an overnight fast at baseline and after 6 months were: total daily insulin dose, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, adiponectin, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, NT-proBNP, and ultrafiltrate volume. RESULTS: Application of pioglitazone resulted in a significant decrease of the daily insulin dose by 35% versus baseline (placebo: -10%, n.s.), improvement in HbA1c (-0.60 ± 0.87%, p = 0.015; placebo: 0.21 ± 1.1%, n.s.) and adiponectin (7.33 ± 4.80 mg/l, p < 0.001; placebo: -1.37 ± 2.56 mg/l, n.s.). Slight improvements or no changes were seen with fasting glucose, triglycerides, HDL, LDL and NT-proBNP. There was no indication of increased hypoglycemia risk and volume overload by the addition of pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of pioglitazone to insulin in patients with late-stage kidney failure requiring hemodialysis is a well-tolerated treatment option that improves glycemic control with simultaneous insulin-sparing potential.

Combined pioglitazone and metformin treatment maintains the beneficial effect of short-term insulin infusion in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to examine the efficacy of short-term intravenous insulin intervention followed by oral pioglitazone/metformin therapy to prevent patients from continuous insulin application. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, 4-month pilot study comprised of 14 diabetes patients (5 female, 9 male; age 60 +/- 2 years; body mass index 29 +/- 3.2 kg/m(2); hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 7.6 +/- 1.1%) with (1) insufficient glycemic control under a dose of metformin >or=1700 mg/day and/or metformin plus additional oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and (2) appropriate residual beta-cell function. Initially, an inpatient 34 h continuous intravenous insulin infusion was performed, and metformin was given (2x 850 mg/day). Insulin was stopped, and pioglitazone 30 mg/day was added at the second inpatient day. Patients were followed for four months. Efficacy parameters [change of HbA1c, fasting blood glucose [FBG], intact proinsulin, adiponectin, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP)] were assessed after initial normalization of blood glucose values by intravenous insulin and at the study end point. RESULTS: During the acute insulin intervention, FBG levels were stabilized in all study subjects. In the following OAD treatment period, five patients showed an improvement of HbA1c > 0.5% [35.7%; seven patients remained stable (50.0%), two patients were nonresponders (14.3%)]. Fasting glucose values dropped after insulin infusion (-17.7%; p < .001). This effect was maintained during the consecutive OAD treatment period (glucose +0.3%, not significant (NS); HbA1c -6.0%; p < .05). The initial decrease in fasting intact proinsulin levels was also maintained during the study (end value -41%, p < .05). Improvements in hsCRP values (postinsulin value, -15%, NS; end value -37%; p < .05) and adiponectin values (postinsulin value +15%, NS; end value +128%; p < .001) were demonstrated at end point only after continued glitazone intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study demonstrated that a beneficial effect of a short-term intravenous insulin application on glycemic control was effectively maintained by pioglitazone/metformin treatment for at least 4 months. In addition, the oral therapy significantly improved cardiovascular risk parameters.