RESUMO
Animal studies suggest that short-chain fatty acids acetate and butyrate are key players in the gut-brain axis and may affect insulin sensitivity. We investigated the association of intestinal acetate and butyrate availability (measured by butyryl-coenzyme A transferase (ButCoA) gene amount) with insulin sensitivity and secretion in healthy subjects from the HELIUS cohort study from the highest 15% (N = 30) and the lowest 15% (N = 30) intestinal ButCoA gene amount. The groups did not differ in insulin sensitivity or secretion. However, the high ButCoA group showed lower glucose and insulin peaks during the first 60 min after a meal and a higher nadir during the second 60 min (p < 0.01), suggesting delayed glucose adsorption from the small intestine. Our data suggest that chronically increased acetate and butyrate availability may improve glucose metabolism by delaying gastric emptying and intestinal adsorption. Future studies should further investigate the effect of acetate and butyrate interventions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines are designed to encompass the needs of the majority of patients with a particular condition. The American Heart Association (AHA) in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) developed risk stratification guidelines to aid physicians with accurate and efficient diagnosis and management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). While useful in a primary care setting, in the unique environment of an emergency department (ED), the feasibility of incorporating guidelines into clinical workflow remains in question. We aim to compare emergency physicians' (EP) clinical risk stratification ability to AHA/ACC/ACEP guidelines for ACS, and assessed each for accuracy in predicting ACS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study in an urban teaching hospital ED. All patients presenting to the ED with chest pain who were evaluated for ACS had two risk stratification scores assigned: one by the treating physician based on clinical evaluation and the other by the AHA/ACC/ACEP guideline aforementioned. The patient's ACS risk stratification classified by the EP was compared to AHA/ACC/ACEP guidelines. Patients were contacted at 30 days following the index ED visit to determine all cause mortality, unscheduled hospital/ED revisits, and objective cardiac testing performed. RESULTS: We enrolled 641 patients presenting for evaluation by 21 different EPs. There was a difference between the physician's clinical assessment used in the ED, and the AHA/ACC/ACEP task force guidelines. EPs were more likely to assess patients as low risk (40%), while AHA/ACC/ACEP guidelines were more likely to classify patients as intermediate (45%) or high (45%) risk. Of the 119 (19%) patients deemed high risk by EP evaluation, 38 (32%) were diagnosed with ACS. AHA/ACC/ACEP guidelines classified only 57 (9%) patients low risk with 56 (98%) of those patients diagnosed with no ACS. CONCLUSION: In the ED, physicians are more efficient at correctly placing patients with underlying ACS into a high-risk category. A small percentage of patients were considered low risk when applying AHA/ACC/ACEP guidelines, which demonstrates how clinical insight is often required to make an efficient assessment of cardiac risk and established criteria may be overly conservative when applied to an acute care population.
