A novel presentation of diaphragmatic flutter in a patient with obstructive sleep apnea and recurrent cerebellar hemangioblastoma.

We report a unique case of diaphragmatic flutter in a patient with obstructive sleep apnea who had no respiratory symptoms related to flutter and a history of recurrent cerebellar hemangioblastoma. The flutter was detected during a routine follow-up monitoring through the built-in software of the positive airway pressure device; the flow and pressure curves showed abnormal and curious oscillations. The ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis and ruled out other causes of abnormal diaphragmatic movements. This case report contributes to the scientific literature by presenting a novel case of diaphragmatic flutter associated with recurrent cerebellar hemangioblastoma. It also emphasizes the need for more research on the pathophysiology and treatment of this rare condition. CITATION: Ciorba C, Espinoza Perez JA, Alfonso Imizcoz M, Errasti Viader J, Cebollero Rivas P, De Vito EL. A novel presentation of diaphragmatic flutter in a patient with obstructive sleep apnea and recurrent cerebellar hemangioblastoma. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(2):313-317.

La espirometría en la Neumología pública en Navarra. Análisis contrastado del estudio 3E / Spirometry in Public Hospitals in Navarre. A Comparative Analysis of the 3E Study

No disponible

Evaluación de la utilización de una consulta de diagnóstico rápido de cáncer de pulmón. Tiempos de demora diagnóstica y terapéutica / Evaluation of the Use of a Rapid Diagnostic Consultation of Lung Cancer. Delay Time of Diagnosis and Therapy

Objetivo: Analizar los resultados conseguidos desde su creación hace 5 años en una consulta de diagnóstico rápido de cáncer de pulmón (CDR-CP) relacionados con el buen uso de la derivación, tiempos de demora diagnóstica y terapéutica, y días de estancia hospitalaria. Comparar las demoras diagnóstico-terapéuticas y estancias hospitalarias con las obtenidas en los pacientes evaluados mediante la sistemática habitual (NCDR-CP). Pacientes y método: Se ha incluido a todos los pacientes valorados en nuestra CDR-CP en los últimos 5 años. En los CP se han registrado las fechas de derivación al médico especialista, primera consulta, realización de pruebas diagnósticas, estadificación, inicio del tratamiento y días de hospitalización. Se han comparado estos mismos datos con los pacientes NCDR-CP diagnosticados en el periodo de octubre 2008 a octubre de 2010. Resultados: Se evaluaron 179 pacientes remitidos a CDR-CP que representan el 26,7% de las consultas ofertadas, siendo 166 (92,7%) las remisiones correctas, de las que el 44,5% correspondieron a un CP; en el 75,6% de ellos se realizó todo el estudio de forma ambulatoria y más del 85% de los casos cumplían con las recomendaciones existentes relacionadas con las demoras diagnóstico-terapéuticas. Al comparar estos datos con el grupo NCDR-CP (n=151), se encontraron diferencias relacionadas con los datos de hospitalización: menor porcentaje de ingresados (p<0,0001) y menos días de estancia (p<0,0001) en el grupo CDR-CP. No existieron diferencias entre ambos grupos en las demoras diagnósticas y terapéuticas. Conclusión: En nuestro medio la consulta de diagnóstico rápido de cáncer de pulmón permite realizar, en un gran porcentaje de casos, todos los estudios de forma ambulatoria y en plazos de tiempo acordes con las recomendaciones existentes. Pese a ello, hemos detectado una acusada infrautilización de las mismas(AU)

Objective: To analyze the results obtained in a lung cancer screening program since its inception five years ago regarding correct referrals, diagnostic and therapeutic delay times and days of hospitalization. To compare the diagnostic-therapeutic delays and hospital stays with those obtained in patients evaluated with the standard system. Patients and methods: Included for study were all those patients evaluated in our Lung Cancer Screening Program (LCSP) in the last five years. For the cases with LC, we recorded the dates the patients were referred to a specialist, the first consultation, diagnostic tests, stage, start of treatment and days of hospitalization. We compared these same data with lung cancer patients who did not partake in the LCSP and were diagnosed between October 2008 and October 2010. Results: We evaluated 179 patients remitted to the LCSP, which represented 26.7% of the consultations; 166 (92.7%) of the referrals were correct, out of which 44.5% were LC. In 75.6% of these, the entire study was completed in the outpatient setting, and more than 85% of the cases met the current recommendations related with diagnostic-therapeutic delays. When these results were compared with the non-LCSP group (n=151), differences were found in the data for hospitalizations: there was a lower percentage of hospitalizations (P<.0001) and shorter hospital stays (P<.0001) in the LCSP group. There were no differences between the two groups for diagnostic or therapeutic delays. Conclusion: In our setting, lung cancer screening programs allow for cancer studies to be carried out in the outpatient consultations in a large percentage of cases, and within the time periods recommended by current guidelines. In spite of this fact, we have detected that these programs are underused(AU)

Evaluation of the use of a rapid diagnostic consultation of lung cancer. Delay time of diagnosis and therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results obtained in a lung cancer screening program since its inception five years ago regarding correct referrals, diagnostic and therapeutic delay times and days of hospitalization. To compare the diagnostic-therapeutic delays and hospital stays with those obtained in patients evaluated with the standard system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Included for study were all those patients evaluated in our Lung Cancer Screening Program (LCSP) in the last five years. For the cases with LC, we recorded the dates the patients were referred to a specialist, the first consultation, diagnostic tests, stage, start of treatment and days of hospitalization. We compared these same data with lung cancer patients who did not partake in the LCSP and were diagnosed between October 2008 and October 2010. RESULTS: We evaluated 179 patients remitted to the LCSP, which represented 26.7% of the consultations; 166 (92.7%) of the referrals were correct, out of which 44.5% were LC. In 75.6% of these, the entire study was completed in the outpatient setting, and more than 85% of the cases met the current recommendations related with diagnostic-therapeutic delays. When these results were compared with the non-LCSP group (n=151), differences were found in the data for hospitalizations: there was a lower percentage of hospitalizations (P<.0001) and shorter hospital stays (P<.0001) in the LCSP group. There were no differences between the two groups for diagnostic or therapeutic delays. CONCLUSION: In our setting, lung cancer screening programs allow for cancer studies to be carried out in the outpatient consultations in a large percentage of cases, and within the time periods recommended by current guidelines. In spite of this fact, we have detected that these programs are underused.

Serum levels of soluble mesothelin-related peptides in malignant and nonmalignant asbestos-related pleural disease: relation with past asbestos exposure.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) results from malignant transformation of mesothelial cells. Past asbestos exposure represents a major risk factor for MPM and other benign pleural disease. Soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP) have been regarded as a promising serum biomarker for MPM. The aim of this study was to investigate serum levels of SMRP in malignant and nonmalignant asbestos-related pleural disease. PATIENTS: Four groups of patients were investigated: group 1 composed of 48 healthy subjects, group 2 composed of 177 patients with previous asbestos exposure and no pleural disease, group 3 composed of 36 patients with MPM, and group 4 composed of 101 patients with previous asbestos exposure and benign pleural disease. Serum SMRP levels were determined by ELISA. RESULTS: Serum SMRP levels were significantly higher among group 3 than the other three groups. There were no differences in SMRP concentrations between groups 2 and 4. Subjects exposed to asbestos had higher SMRP concentrations than normal control subjects regardless of the presence of pleural disease. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for SMRP values was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.83). The SMRP level at 0.55 nmol/L/L was determined as the most optimal cutoff value with resulting sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 72% for the diagnosis of MPM. CONCLUSIONS: These data attest to good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of SMRP for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. We have also shown that serum SMRP levels might serve as a marker of asbestos exposure.