METHODS: This study was a single centre, retrospective casecontrol study. We recruited 42 patients diagnosed with cardiac tamponade of various aetiologies confirmed by transthoracic echocardiography and 100 controls between January 2011 and December 2015. The ECG criteria of cardiac tamponade we adopted was as follows: 1) Low QRS voltage in a) the limb leads alone, b) in the precordial leads alone or, c) in all leads, 2) PR segment depression, 3) Electrical alternans, and 4) Sinus tachycardia.
RESULTS: Malignancy was the most common causes of cardiac tamponade, the two groups were of similar proportion of gender and ethnicity. We calculated the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each ECG criteria. Among the ECG abnormalities, we noted the SN of 'low voltage in all chest leads' (69%), 'low voltage in all limb leads' (67%) and 'sinus tachycardia' (69%) were higher as compared to 'PR depression' (12%) and 'electrical alternan' (5%). On the other hand, 'low voltage in all chest leads' (98%), 'low voltage in all leads' (99%), 'PR depression' (100%) and 'electrical alternans' (100%) has highest SP.
CONCLUSION: Our study reaffirmed the findings of previous studies that electrocardiography cannot be used as a screening tool for diagnosing cardiac tamponade due to its low sensitivity. However, with clinical correlation, electrocardiography is a valuable adjuvant test to 'rule in' cardiac tamponade because of its high specificity.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.