Search

Author(s): Christoph Brochhausen [sup.1] [sup.2], Thomas Bein [sup.3], Vittorio Fineschi [sup.4] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.7727.5, 0000 0001 2190 5763, Institute of Pathology, University Regensburg, , Regensburg, Germany (2) grid.411941.8, 0000 [...]

Investigating the causes of Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is always difficult; in fact, genetic cardiac conditions associated with SCD could be "silent" even during autopsy investigation. In these cases, it is important to exclude other aetiology and assist to ask for genetic investigations. Herein, the purpose of this review is to collect the most-implicated genes in SCD and generate a panel with indications for first line and second line investigations. A systematic review of genetic disorders that may cause SCD in the general population was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review (PRISMA) standards. We subsequently listed the genes that may be tested in the case of sudden cardiac death when the autopsy results are negative or with no evidence of acquired cardiac conditions. To make genetic tests more specific and efficient, it is useful and demanded to corroborate autopsy findings with the molecular investigation as evident in the panel proposed. The genes for first line investigations are HCM, MYBPC3, MYH7, TNNT2, TNNI3, while in case of DCM, the most implicated genes are LMNA and TTN, and in second line for these CDM, ACTN2, TPM1, C1QPB could be investigated. In cases of ACM/ARVC, the molecular investigation includes DSP, DSG2, DSC2, RYR2, PKP2. The channelopathies are associated with the following genes: SCN5A, KCNQ1, KCNH2, KCNE1, RYR2. Our work underlines the importance of genetic tests in forensic medicine and clinical pathology; moreover, it could be helpful not only to assist the pathologists to reach a diagnosis, but also to prevent other cases of SCD in the family of the descendant and to standardise the type of analysis performed in similar cases worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental capacity is a fundamental aspect that enables patients to fully participate in various healthcare procedures. To assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in assessing patients' capacity, especially in the mental health field, several standardized tools have been developed. These tools include the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), and the Competence Assessment Tool for Psychiatric Advance Directives (CAT-PAD). The core dimensions explored by these tools include Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expression of a choice. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate potential differences in decision-making capacity within the healthcare context among groups of patients with bipolar disorders (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, and Scopus. Additionally, Google Scholar was manually inspected, and a manual search of emerging reviews and reference lists of the retrieved papers was performed. Eligible studies were specifically cross-sectional, utilizing standardized assessment tools, and involving patients diagnosed with BD and SSD. Data from the studies were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Hedges' g was used as a measure for outcomes. Results: Six studies were identified, with three studies using the MacCAT-CR, two studies the MacCAT-T, and one the CAT-PAD. The participants included 189 individuals with BD and 324 individuals with SSD. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with BD performed slightly better compared to patients with SSD, with the difference being statistically significant in the domain of Appreciation (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, p = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for Understanding (ES = 0.09, 95% CI:−0.10 to 0.27, p = 0.352), Reasoning (ES = 0.18, 95% CI: −0.12 to 0.47, p = 0.074), and Expression of a choice (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: −0.01 to 0.48, p = 0.60). In the sensitivity analysis, furthermore, when considering only studies involving patients in symptomatic remission, the difference for Appreciation also resulted in non-significant (ES = 0.21, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.46, p = 0.102). Conclusions: These findings indicate that there are no significant differences between patients with BD and SSD during remission phases, while differences are minimal during acute phases. The usefulness of standardized assessment of capacity at any stage of the illness should be considered, both for diagnostic-therapeutic phases and for research and advance directives. Further studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the overlap in capacity between the two diagnostic categories compared in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]