RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Skin barrier function assessment is commonly done by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL). An important limitation of this method is the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a lesser-established method for skin barrier function assessment. Some influential factors have been described, but no guidelines exist regarding the standardization of these measurements. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect size of daily routine activities on TEWL and EIS, as well as their correlation with age and anatomical differences. METHODS: Healthy participants (n=31) were stratified into three age groups (18-29, 30-49, and ≥50 years). In a climate-controlled room, EIS and TEWL measurements were performed on the left and right volar forearm and abdomen. RESULTS: Body cream application decreased TEWL and EIS values after 15 and 90 minutes. Skin washing decreased TEWL for 15 minutes and EIS values for at least 90 minutes. TEWL was increased 5 minutes after moderate to intense exercise. Coffee intake increased TEWL on the abdomen after 60 minutes. TEWL and EIS values did not correlate with participants' age and no anatomical differences were observed. No correlation was observed between TEWL and EIS. CONCLUSION: Body cream application and skin washing should be avoided at least 90 minutes prior to measurements of TEWL and EIS. Exercise and coffee intake should also be avoided prior to TEWL measurements. EIS may be a promising tool for skin barrier function assessment as it is less affected by daily routine activities than TEWL.
RESUMEN
LpX is a lipoprotein formed in cholestatic conditions and often erroneously reported as LDL-C. A low ApoB level can support the diagnosis of LpX. Treatment should not automatically focus on lowering serum lipid levels, but primarily on resolving the cause of cholestasis. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is an important modifiable risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) but is underdiagnosed in this population. Currently, polysomnography is the gold standard for diagnosing OSA, but is expensive and requires overnight examination. Alternatively, home sleep apnoea testing can be used as a diagnostic tool, but also requires a complete data review. Therefore, these OSA diagnostic modalities are not ideal screening methods. Several OSA screening tools exist, but their value in patients with AF remains unclear. AIM: To test the performance of existing screening questionnaires/scales for clinically relevant OSA in patients with AF referred for diagnostic polysomnography. METHODS: This prospective study compared the performance of seven screening tools (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Berlin Questionnaire, Sleep Apnea Clinical Score, NoSAS, OSA50, STOP-Bang and MOODS) with polysomnography in the detection of clinically relevant OSA in consecutive patients with AF referred to two sleep clinics. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients referred for polysomnography and known previous AF were included. Polysomnography indicated at least clinically relevant OSA (i.e., apnoea-hypopnoea index≥15 events/hour) in 69% of cases, and 33% had severe OSA (apnoea-hypopnoea index>30 events/hour). In screening for clinically relevant OSA, only the SACS and NoSAS scores had fair areas under the curve (0.704 and 0.712, respectively). None of the seven screening tools was performant enough (i.e., had a fair area under the curve>0.7) in the detection of severe OSA. CONCLUSIONS: In this AF cohort referred for polysomnography, clinically relevant OSA was prevalent. None of the selected screening tools showed sufficient performance as a good discriminative screening tool for clinically relevant OSA in patients with AF. Given these findings, other screening modalities for OSA should be considered in the work-up of patients with AF.
