As diagnostic techniques have advanced, primary aldosteronism (PA) has emerged as the most common cause of secondary hypertension. The excess of aldosterone caused by PA resulted in not only cardiovascular complications, including coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and heart failure, but also cerebrovascular complications, such as stroke and transient ischemic attack. Moreover, PA is associated more closely with these conditions than is essential hypertension. In this review, we present up-to-date findings on the association between PA and cerebrovascular diseases.
Aldosterone ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Cerebrovascular Disorders* ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Heart Failure ; Hyperaldosteronism* ; Hypertension ; Ischemic Attack, Transient ; Myocardial Infarction ; Stroke

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

Objective: The Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS) is an interview-based assessment tool for evaluating the cognitive deficit and daily functioning of patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Sixty-eight patients with schizophrenia and 68 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals were recruited to validate the Chinese version of SCoRS in this study. All participants underwent cognitive assessment using the SCoRS, which was verified by the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), and the UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment, Brief Version (UPSA-B). Patients with schizophrenia were additionally assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Results: SCoRS ratings reported by patients (SCoRS-S), those reported by the interviewer (SCoRS-I), and SCoRS global scores (SCoRS-G) showed significant correlation with all subscales of the BACS and the UPSA-B. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SCoRS-S, SCoRS-I, and SCoRS-G significantly differentiated patients with schizophrenia from healthy controls. Moreover, SCoRS-S and SCoRS-I ratings showed positive correlation with the negative symptoms and general symptoms of PANSS. Conclusion The Chinese version of SCoRS showed good discriminant, concurrent, and external validity, suggesting that it is a useful and convenient tool for assessment of cognitive function among Mandarin-speaking patients with schizophrenia in clinical practice.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.