Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias / Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department

Objetivos Identificar posibles factores predictores de crisis epilépticas en acúmulos o estado epiléptico (EE) y evaluar si estos pacientes reciben una mayor intervención en urgencias. Metodología Análisis secundario del Registro ACESUR el cual es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en 18 servicios de urgencias. Se recogen variables clínico-asistenciales. Se identifican factores y modelo de riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE y se evalúa el efecto de intervención en servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y hospitalarios. Resultados Del registro ACESUR se analizan 186 (28%) con crisis en acúmulos (126; 19%) o EE (60; 9%) frente a 478 (72%) pacientes con crisis aislada. El modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulo o EE en urgencias incluyó la presencia de alta comorbilidad según índice de Charlson > 3 (OR: 1,60; IC95%: 1,05-2,46; p = 0,030), > 2 fármacos antiepilépticos habituales (OR: 2,29; IC95%: 1,49-3,51; p < 0,001) y crisis focal (OR: 1,56; IC95%: 1,05-2,32; p = 0,027). El ABC del modelo fue de 0,735 (IC95%: 0,693-0,777; p = 0,021). La intervención en pacientes con crisis en acúmulos y EE fue mayor en los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios (OR: 2,89; IC95%: 1,91-4,36; p < 0,001) y en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (OR: 4,41; IC95%: 2,69-7,22; p < 0,001). Conclusiones El modelo presentado podría ser una herramienta con valor predictivo de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE en urgencias. Estos pacientes recibieron una mayor intervención frente a pacientes con crisis epiléptica aislada por parte de los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y más aún por los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios en nuestra muestra. (AU)

Objectives To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. Methodology We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. Results We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P = .030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P < .001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P = .027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P = .021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P < .001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P < .001). Conclusions This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department. (AU)

Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias / Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department

Objetivos Identificar posibles factores predictores de crisis epilépticas en acúmulos o estado epiléptico (EE) y evaluar si estos pacientes reciben una mayor intervención en urgencias. Metodología Análisis secundario del Registro ACESUR el cual es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en 18 servicios de urgencias. Se recogen variables clínico-asistenciales. Se identifican factores y modelo de riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE y se evalúa el efecto de intervención en servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y hospitalarios. Resultados Del registro ACESUR se analizan 186 (28%) con crisis en acúmulos (126; 19%) o EE (60; 9%) frente a 478 (72%) pacientes con crisis aislada. El modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulo o EE en urgencias incluyó la presencia de alta comorbilidad según índice de Charlson > 3 (OR: 1,60; IC95%: 1,05-2,46; p = 0,030), > 2 fármacos antiepilépticos habituales (OR: 2,29; IC95%: 1,49-3,51; p < 0,001) y crisis focal (OR: 1,56; IC95%: 1,05-2,32; p = 0,027). El ABC del modelo fue de 0,735 (IC95%: 0,693-0,777; p = 0,021). La intervención en pacientes con crisis en acúmulos y EE fue mayor en los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios (OR: 2,89; IC95%: 1,91-4,36; p < 0,001) y en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (OR: 4,41; IC95%: 2,69-7,22; p < 0,001). Conclusiones El modelo presentado podría ser una herramienta con valor predictivo de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE en urgencias. Estos pacientes recibieron una mayor intervención frente a pacientes con crisis epiléptica aislada por parte de los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y más aún por los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios en nuestra muestra. (AU)

Objectives To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. Methodology We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. Results We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P = .030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P < .001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P = .027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P = .021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P < .001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P < .001). Conclusions This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department. (AU)

Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. RESULTS: We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P=.030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P<.001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P=.027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P=.021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P<.001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department.

[On the treatment of epileptic seizures in patients with epilepsy in hospital emergency departments]. / Acerca de la atención de las crisis epilépticas en pacientes con epilepsia en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios.

TITLE: Acerca de la atención de las crisis epilépticas en pacientes con epilepsia en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios.

Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department. / Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. RESULTS: We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores≥3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P=.030), ≥2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P<.001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P=.027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P=.021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P<.001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department.

Programa de intervención en pacientes mayores frágiles dados de alta desde urgencias / Intervention programme for elderly frail patients discharged from the emergency department

No disponible

[Adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment after a first epileptic seizure 30 days after discharge from hospital emergency departments: the ACESUR registry]. / Adecuacion y efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo tras una primera crisis epileptica a los 30 dias del alta de servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: registro ACESUR.

AIM: To evaluate the adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment in adult patients with the first epileptic seizure in adverse outcomes at 30 days after discharge from the hospital emergency department (HED). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ACESUR was an observational registry of multipurpose, prospective and multicentric cohorts with a systematic sampling. Phone follow-up was done at 30 days. Clinical variables were collected in the index visit and the follow-up result. The main variable was «adequate preventive treatment according to indications¼ and the result of «some adverse outcome¼ (recurrence of epileptic seizure, revisits to HED, hospitalization or death) 30 days after discharge from HED. A logistic regression model was used to isolate the effect of adequate preventive treatment. RESULTS: 151 (22.7%) patients with a mean age of 55 years old were included with first epileptic seizure discharged from 18 HED with follow-up data. Preventive treatment was considered adequate in 128 (84.8%) patients. 41 (27.2%) patients presented some adverse outcome 30 days after discharge. After the logistic regression, the appropriate preventive treatment to the discharge of the HED exerts a protective effect on the variable «some adverse outcome to 30 days¼. CONCLUSIONS: In the ACESUR registry, preventive treatment was adequate for most patients and its effect was independent protective at 30 days. Therefore, adequate preventive treatment could improve the short-term results of adult patients discharged with the first epileptic seizure of the HED.

TITLE: Adecuacion y efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo tras una primera crisis epileptica a los 30 dias del alta de servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: registro ACESUR.Objetivo. Evaluar la adecuacion y el efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo en pacientes adultos con una primera crisis epileptica en cuanto a resultados adversos a los 30 dias del alta del servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Pacientes y metodos. ACESUR fue un registro observacional de cohortes multiproposito, prospectivo y multicentrico con un muestreo sistematico. Se realizo seguimiento telefonico a los 30 dias. Se recogieron variables clinicas en la visita indice y de resultado en seguimiento. La variable principal fue «tratamiento preventivo adecuado segun indicaciones¼, y la de resultado, «algun resultado adverso¼ (recurrencia de crisis epileptica, revisita a SUH, hospitalizacion o muerte) a los 30 dias del alta de urgencias. Se realizo un modelo de regresion logistica para aislar el efecto del tratamiento preventivo adecuado. Resultados. Se incluyo a 151 (22,7%) pacientes con una media de 55 años con primera crisis epileptica, dados de alta de 18 SUH con datos de seguimiento. El tratamiento preventivo se considero adecuado en 128 (84,8%) pacientes. Cuarenta y un (27,2%) pacientes presentaron algun resultado adverso a los 30 dias del alta. Tras la regresion logistica, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado al alta del SUH ejerce un efecto protector sobre la variable «algun resultado adverso a 30 dias¼. Conclusiones. En el registro ACESUR, el tratamiento preventivo fue adecuado en la mayoria de los pacientes y su efecto resulto, de forma independiente, protector a los 30 dias. Por tanto, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado podria mejorar los resultados a corto plazo de pacientes adultos dados de alta con una primera crisis epileptica del SUH.

Intervención multidimensional que mejora el pronóstico a corto plazo entre los ancianos frágiles dados de alta desde una unidad de corta estancia: estudio cuasiexperimental / Multidimensional intervention to improve the short-term prognosis of frail elderly patients discharged from a short-stay unit: A quasiexperimental study

Objetivo. Estudiar el efecto de una intervención multidimensional en el pronóstico a 30 días en los ancianos frágiles dados de alta desde una unidad de corta estancia. Material y método. Estudio cuasiexperimental con una cohorte de control histórica. Se incluyeron pacientes frágiles (Identification of Senior at Risk≥2), de≥75 años, dados de alta desde la unidad de corta estancia durante 2 meses en 2013 (grupo control) y un año (2016; grupo de intervención). Se realizó una intervención basada en la activación de recursos, en función de los déficits detectados tras una valoración geriátrica abreviada, más la coordinación con Atención Primaria. La variable de resultado principal fue la presencia de algún resultado adverso (muerte o reingreso por cualquier causa o deterioro funcional grave) a los 30 días del alta. Resultados. Se incluyeron 137 (62,8%) pacientes en el grupo de intervención y 81 (37,2%) en el control. Dieciocho (13,1%) pacientes en el grupo de intervención y 29 (35,8%) en el control presentaron algún evento adverso a los 30 días. Tras un análisis multivariable, se demostró que la realización de una intervención multidimensional fue un factor de protección para la presentación de algún evento adverso a los 30 días tras el alta (RR ajustado 0,40; IC 95% 0,23-0,68; p=0,001). Conclusiones. La realización de un plan de atención individualizado, basado en la activación de recursos, en función de los déficits detectados tras una valoración geriátrica abreviada, y la coordinación con Atención Primaria, entre los pacientes ancianos frágiles podría mejorar los resultados a los 30 días tras el alta desde una UCE

Objective. To study the effect of a multidimensional intervention on the prognosis at 30 days for frail elderly patients discharged from a short-stay unit. Material and method. A quasiexperimental study was conducted with a historical control cohort. We included frail patients (Identification of Seniors at Risk score≥2) 75 years of age or older, discharged from an short-stay unit over 2 months in 2013 (control group) and in 2016 (intervention group). An intervention was conducted based on the activation of resources, based on the deficiencies detected after an abbreviated geriatric assessment, in conjunction with Primary Care. The main endpoint was the presence of an adverse result (death or readmission for any cause or severe functional impairment) at 30 days of discharge. Results. We included 137 (62.8%) patients in the intervention group and 81 (37.2%) in the control group. Eighteen (13.1%) patients in the intervention group and 29 (35.8%) in the control group presented an adverse event at 30 days. A multivariate analysis showed that the implementation of a multidimensional intervention was a protective factor for presenting an adverse event at 30 days of discharge (adjusted RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; P=.001). Conclusions. The implementation of an individual care plan for frail elderly patients, based on the activation of resources according to the deficiencies detected after an abbreviated geriatric assessment and in conjunction with Primary Care, could improve the results at 30 days of discharge from an short-stay unit

Multidimensional intervention to improve the short-term prognosis of frail elderly patients discharged from a short-stay unit: A quasiexperimental study. / Intervención multidimensional que mejora el pronóstico a corto plazo entre los ancianos frágiles dados de alta desde una unidad de corta estancia: estudio cuasiexperimental.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of a multidimensional intervention on the prognosis at 30 days for frail elderly patients discharged from a short-stay unit. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A quasiexperimental study was conducted with a historical control cohort. We included frail patients (Identification of Seniors at Risk score≥2) 75 years of age or older, discharged from an short-stay unit over 2 months in 2013 (control group) and in 2016 (intervention group). An intervention was conducted based on the activation of resources, based on the deficiencies detected after an abbreviated geriatric assessment, in conjunction with Primary Care. The main endpoint was the presence of an adverse result (death or readmission for any cause or severe functional impairment) at 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: We included 137 (62.8%) patients in the intervention group and 81 (37.2%) in the control group. Eighteen (13.1%) patients in the intervention group and 29 (35.8%) in the control group presented an adverse event at 30 days. A multivariate analysis showed that the implementation of a multidimensional intervention was a protective factor for presenting an adverse event at 30 days of discharge (adjusted RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an individual care plan for frail elderly patients, based on the activation of resources according to the deficiencies detected after an abbreviated geriatric assessment and in conjunction with Primary Care, could improve the results at 30 days of discharge from an short-stay unit.

Análisis de las interconsultas al neurólogo de guardia por crisis comicial en un servicio de urgencias / Analysis of emergency department consults with an on-call neurologist due to seizures

No disponible

[Differences in the management of epileptic seizures between the elderly and younger adults treated in an emergency department]. / Diferencias en el manejo de las crisis epilepticas entre los ancianos y los adultos mas jovenes atendidos en un servicio de urgencias.

AIM: To study the differences in the management and short-term outcomes of adult patients treated in an emergency service for epileptic seizures, depending on whether they are elderly or not. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study included all the patients over 15 years of age who were treated for epileptic seizures in the hospital emergency department of a tertiary and university hospital between 1 September and 31 December 2011. The variables collected were acute treatment and follow-up at 30 days after the index event in the emergency department. RESULTS: Altogether the sample included 114 patients with a mean age of 46.4 years (interquartile range: 32.6-74.3 years), of whom 34 (29.8%) were aged 65 years or over. The group of elderly persons presented a first epileptic episode (p = 0.001), with unknown precipitating factor (p = 0.02), structural causation (p < 0.001), a computerised tomography scan carried out in the emergency department (p < 0.001), establishment of preventive antiepileptic drug regime in the emergency department (p = 0.001) and a prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.002) more frequently than the younger adults. Following a multivariable analysis, being elderly was an independent factor associated to a greater need for specific complementary tests (odds ratio = 3.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.3-10.3) and pharmacological intervention in the emergency department (odds ratio = 3.3; 95% confidence interval = 1.4-8.1). There were no statistically significant differences in the results between the two groups at 30 days in terms of return visits (p = 0.316) and mortality (p = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of epileptic seizures in the elderly in the emergency department is complex, if compared with younger adults, thereby making it necessary to use a greater amount of hospital resources.

TITLE: Diferencias en el manejo de las crisis epilepticas entre los ancianos y los adultos mas jovenes atendidos en un servicio de urgencias.Objetivo. Estudiar las diferencias en el manejo y los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes adultos atendidos en un servicio de urgencias por una crisis epileptica en funcion de ser anciano. Pacientes y metodos. Estudio observacional de cohorte retrospectivo que selecciono a todos los pacientes de 15 años o mas atendidos por una crisis epileptica en un servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario y universitario desde el 1 de septiembre al 31 de diciembre de 2011. Se recogieron las variables de la atencion aguda y de seguimiento a los 30 dias del episodio indice de urgencias. Resultados. Se incluyeron 114 pacientes con una mediana de edad de 46,4 años (rango intercuartilico: 32,6-74,3 años), de los cuales 34 (29,8%) tenian 65 años o mas. El grupo de los mayores presento mas frecuentemente un primer episodio epileptico (p = 0,001), desencadenante desconocido (p = 0,02), etiologia estructural (p < 0,001), realizacion de tomografia computarizada en urgencias (p < 0,001), inicio de farmaco antiepileptico preventivo en urgencias (p = 0,001) y estancia prolongada (p = 0,002) que los adultos mas jovenes. Tras un analisis multivariable, el ser anciano fue un factor independiente asociado a un mayor requerimiento de pruebas complementarias especificas (Odds ratio = 3,7; intervalo de confianza al 95% = 1,3-10,3) e intervencion farmacologica en urgencias (odds ratio = 3,3; intervalo de confianza al 95% = 1,4-8,1). No hubo diferencias estadisticamente significativas en los resultados a 30 dias entre ambos grupos en terminos de revisita (p = 0,316) y mortalidad (p = 0,087). Conclusiones. La atencion de las crisis epilepticas del anciano en urgencias, en comparacion con adultos mas jovenes, es mas compleja, siendo necesario un mayor consumo de recursos hospitalarios.

[The geriatric patient and emergency care]. / El paciente geriátrico en urgencias.

Demand in emergency care has been growing progressively in recent years and this increase is more pronounced in the elderly population. Taking into account that the elderly patient requires more complex evaluations with a greater requirement for complementary tests and consultations with other specialists, longer stays in the emergency ward and a greater percentage of admissions, the progressive ageing of the population might come to have a serious repercussion on hospital emergency departments. It is vital to detect high risk elderly patients before assigning them a definitive placement. For this purpose it is important to install a sieving process amongst elderly patients who attend the emergency department in order to select those that will benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment and thus be able to design a specific care plan. Emergency intervention in elderly patients should not be faced exclusively as a medical problem, but functional, mental or social aspects should be taken into account. This represents a challenge for emergency care. This article considers different aspects such as the detection and assessment of the geriatric patient, as well as establishing certain recommendations for emergency setting.

El paciente geriátrico en urgencias / The geriatric patient and emergency care

progresivamente en los últimos años y este incrementoes más acusado en la población anciana. Teniendoen consideración que el paciente anciano requiereevaluaciones más complejas con una mayor realizaciónde pruebas complementarias y consultas a otros especialistas,estancias más prolongadas en urgencias ymayor porcentaje de ingresos, el progresivo envejecimientopoblacional puede llegar a repercutir seriamenteen la presión asistencial de los servicios de urgenciashospitalarios (SUH).El paciente anciano de alto riesgo es vital detectarloantes de asignarle una ubicación definitiva. Para ello, esimportante instaurar un cribado entre los pacientes ancianosque acuden a urgencias con el fin de seleccionara los que se van a beneficiar de una valoración geriátricaintegral y así poder diseñar un plan específico de cuidados.La intervención urgente en el paciente geriátrico nodebe afrontarse exclusivamente como un problema médicosino que debe tenerse en cuenta aspectos funcionales,mentales o sociales. Representa un reto para los SUH.En el presente artículo vamos a desarrollar diversosaspectos como la detección y la valoración del pacientegeriátrico así como a establecer ciertas recomendacionespara el entorno de urgencias(AU)

Demand in emergency care has been growing progressivelyin recent years and this increase is more pronouncedin the elderly population. Taking into accountthat the elderly patient requires more complex evaluationswith a greater requirement for complementarytests and consultations with other specialists, longerstays in the emergency ward and a greater percentageof admissions, the progressive ageing of the populationmight come to have a serious repercussion on hospitalemergency departments.It is vital to detect high risk elderly patients beforeassigning them a definitive placement. For this purposeit is important to install a sieving process amongst elderlypatients who attend the emergency departmentin order to select those that will benefit from a comprehensivegeriatric assessment and thus be able todesign a specific care plan. Emergency interventionin elderly patients should not be faced exclusively asa medical problem, but functional, mental or social aspectsshould be taken into account. This represents achallenge for emergency care.This article considers different aspects such as thedetection and assessment of the geriatric patient, aswell as establishing certain recommendations for emergencysetting(AU)

La medicina de familia y comunitaria: una asignatura de la Universidad española / The family and community medicine: a subject of Spanish university

En la última década, las Facultades de Medicina se han visto obligadas a adaptar el contenido curricular a las nuevas necesidades de formación, determinadas por los cambios en el abordaje de los problemas de salud, a la modificación de los patrones de morbi-mortalidad y a los avances científico-técnicos. La subespecialización no da respuesta a la necesidad del abordaje holístico e integrado del paciente. La introducción en el curriculum docente de la formación en Medicina de Familia vendría a cubrir ese vacío formativo, existente hoy en las Facul tades de Medicina españolas, cuando hace décadas se viene desarrollando en la mayor parte de las Universidades europeas y americanas. Se expone una propuesta de contenidos, metodología docente y desarrollo de la asignatura de Medicina de Familia, que es fácilmente implantable en las Facultades de Medicina de nuestro país, dejando la puerta abierta para una formación en Medicina de Familia más horizontal y extensa en el futuro (AU)

Cytokines regulate membrane adenosine deaminase on human activated lymphocytes.

CD26 is a lymphocyte marker that can anchor adenosine deaminase (ADA) on the T cell surface. We found that ADA is regulated by cytokines on the cell surface during T cell activation. By means of flow cytometry, immunofluorescence, and immunoblotting techniques, we found that interleukin (IL)-2 and IL-12 up-regulate ecto-ADA and CD26 expression. In clear contrast, IL-4 led to down-regulation of lymphocyte surface ADA without modifying the level of CD26. Moreover, neither circulating ADA transcription nor mRNA translation was regulated by cytokines. These results, along with absence of total-ADA modulation, the variable amount of ADA found in purified plasma membranes, and the different effect of Brefeldin A on the surface presence of ADA and CD26 indicated that cytokines regulate the translocation of ADA towards the cell surface through a mechanism not involving CD26. Ecto-ADA protected activated lymphocytes from the toxic effects of extracellular adenosine. Therefore, this cell surface ADA control might constitute part of the fine immunoregulatory mechanism of adenosine-mediated signaling through purinergic receptors in leukocytes.