The management of acute complete ruptures of the ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb.

Aims: Complete ruptures of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the thumb are a common injury, yet little is known about their current management in the UK. The objective of this study was to assess the way complete UCL ruptures are managed in the UK. Methods: We carried out a multicentre, survey-based cross-sectional study in 37 UK centres over a 16-month period from June 2022 to September 2023. The survey results were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 37 centres participated, of which nine were tertiary referral hand centres and 28 were district general hospitals. There was a total of 112 respondents (69 surgeons and 43 hand therapists). The strongest influence on the decision to offer surgery was the lack of a firm 'endpoint' to stressing the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) in either full extension or with the MCPJ in 30° of flexion. There was variability in whether additional imaging was used in managing acute UCL injuries, with 46% routinely using additional imaging while 54% did not. The use of a bone anchor was by far the most common surgical option for reconstructing an acute ligament avulsion (97%, n = 67) with a transosseous suture used by 3% (n = 2). The most common duration of immobilization for those managed conservatively was six weeks (58%, n = 65) and four weeks (30%, n = 34). Most surgeons (87%, n = 60) and hand therapists (95%, n = 41) would consider randomizing patients with complete UCL ruptures in a future clinical trial. Conclusion: The management of complete UCL ruptures in the UK is highly variable in certain areas, and there is a willingness for clinical trials on this subject.

High-dose allopurinol improves endothelial function by profoundly reducing vascular oxidative stress and not by lowering uric acid.

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol has been shown to improve endothelial function in chronic heart failure. This study aimed to establish its mechanism of action and to construct a dose-response curve for the effect of allopurinol. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies were performed for 1 month on patients with New York Heart Association Class II-III chronic heart failure, comparing 300 mg allopurinol, 600 mg allopurinol, and placebo for the first study and 1000 mg probenecid versus placebo in the second study. Endothelial function was assessed by standard forearm venous occlusion plethysmography. Allopurinol 600 mg/d significantly increased forearm blood flow response to acetylcholine compared with both allopurinol 300 mg/d and placebo (% change in forearm blood flow [mean+/-SEM]: 240.31+/-38.19% versus 152.10+/-18.21% versus 73.96+/-10.29%, P<0.001). For similar levels of urate lowering, the uricosuric agent probenecid had no effect on endothelial function. Sodium nitroprusside response was unchanged by all treatments. Vitamin C and acetylcholine coinfusion data showed that 600 mg/d allopurinol completely abolished the oxidative stress that was sensitive to high-dose vitamin C. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, we have shown that a steep dose-response relationship exists between allopurinol and its effect on endothelial function. We also showed that the mechanism of improvement in endothelial function with allopurinol lies in its ability to reduce vascular oxidative stress and not in urate reduction. The reduction in vascular oxidative stress was profound because high-dose allopurinol totally abolished the oxidative stress that was sensitive to the high-dose vitamin C that was used in this study.

Do losartan and atenolol have differential effects on BNP and central haemodynamic parameters?

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a differential effect on brachial and aortic haemodynamics. This is why they seem to have beneficial effects that are beyond brachial blood pressure (BP) lowering. We aimed to investigate if this was the case with losartan when compared to atenolol. We also investigated the differential effect of losartan and atenolol on the prognostic marker, brain type natriuretic peptide (BNP). METHODS: We studied 17 patients who were similar to those in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Patients were randomised to receive four months of losartan and atenolol in a crossover fashion. Main outcome measures were BNP and Augmentation index (AIx), which gives an indication of central haemodynamics. Brachial pulse wave velocity (PWV) and time to reflected wave (Tr) were measured as an indication of vascular stiffness. RESULTS: BNP was significantly lower on losartan than atenolol (p=0.007). AIx was lower on losartan than atenolol (p=0.03), however, this result was not significant when heart rate was considered as a covariate (p=0.09). Heart rate was significantly lower on atenolol than losartan (p=0.03). There was no difference between treatments for both brachial PWV and Tr (p=0.2 and p=0.99, respectively). CONCLUSION: The benefits seen when losartan was compared to atenolol in the LIFE trial may be due to a reduction in BNP. We failed to detect a differential effect in central compared to peripheral haemodynamics when losartan was compared to atenolol.