Accurate measurement of blood pressure is essential to classify individuals, to ascertain blood pressure-related risk, and to guide management. The auscultatory technique with a trained observer and mercury sphygmomanometer continues to be the method of choice for measurement in the office, using the first and fifth phases of the Korotkoff sounds, including in pregnant women. The use of mercury is declining, and alternatives are needed. Aneroid devices are suitable, but they require frequent calibration. Hybrid devices that use electronic transducers instead of mercury have promise. The oscillometric method can be used for office measurement, but only devices independently validated according to standard protocols should be used, and individual calibration is recommended. They have the advantage of being able to take multiple measurements. Proper training of observers, positioning of the patient, and selection of cuff size are all essential. It is increasingly recognized that office measurements correlate poorly with blood pressure measured in other settings, and that they can be supplemented by self-measured readings taken with validated devices at home. There is increasing evidence that home readings predict cardiovascular events and are particularly useful for monitoring the effects of treatment. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring gives a better prediction of risk than office measurements and is useful for diagnosing white-coat hypertension. There is increasing evidence that a failure of blood pressure to fall during the night may be associated with increased risk. In obese patients and children, the use of an appropriate cuff size is of paramount importance.

/pdf/recommendations-for-blood-pressure-measurement-in-humans-and-19z5w6eq69.pdf

Recommendations for Blood Pressure Measurement in Humans and Experimental Animals Part 1: Blood Pressure Measurement in Humans: A Statement for Professionals From the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research

Background: A consensus conference on multiple system atrophy (MSA) in 1998 established criteria for diagnosis that have been accepted widely. Since then, clinical, laboratory, neuropathologic, and imaging studies have advanced the field, requiring a fresh evaluation of diagnostic criteria. We held a second consensus conference in 2007 and present the results here.Methods: Experts in the clinical, neuropathologic, and imaging aspects of MSA were invited to participate in a 2-day consensus conference. Participants were divided into five groups, consisting of specialists in the parkinsonian, cerebellar, autonomic, neuropathologic, and imaging aspects of the disorder. Each group independently wrote diagnostic criteria for its area of expertise in advance of the meeting. These criteria were discussed and reconciled during the meeting using consensus methodology.Results: The new criteria retain the diagnostic categories of MSA with predominant parkinsonism and MSA with predominant cerebellar ataxia to designate the predominant motor features and also retain the designations of definite, probable, and possible MSA. Definite MSA requires neuropathologic demonstration of CNS alpha-synuclein-positive glial cytoplasmic inclusions with neurodegenerative changes in striatonigral or olivopontocerebellar structures. Probable MSA requires a sporadic, progressive adult-onset disorder including rigorously defined autonomic failure and poorly levodopa-responsive parkinsonism or cerebellar ataxia. Possible MSA requires a sporadic, progressive adult-onset disease including parkinsonism or cerebellar ataxia and at least one feature suggesting autonomic dysfunction plus one other feature that may be a clinical or a neuroimaging abnormality.Conclusions: These new criteria have simplified the previous criteria, have incorporated current knowledge, and are expected to enhance future assessments of the disease.

/pdf/second-consensus-statement-on-the-diagnosis-of-multiple-4ovbtel2cw.pdf

Second consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy

Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategies for a typical patient, suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk/benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been previously discussed.

A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for the development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC Web Site (http://www.escardio.org/guidelines).

In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 .

View this table:

Table 1 
Classes of recommendations



View this table:

Table 2 
Levels of evidence



The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House Headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified …

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-syncope-19cqe5vz46.pdf

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009): the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

background Other than glycemic control, there are no treatments for diabetic neuropathy. Thus, identifying potentially modifiable risk factors for neuropathy is crucial. We studied risk factors for the development of distal symmetric neuropathy in 1172 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus from 31 centers participating in the European Diabetes (EURODIAB) Prospective Complications Study. methods Neuropathy was assessed at baseline (1989 to 1991) and at follow-up (1997 to 1999), with a mean (±SD) follow-up of 7.3±0.6 years. A standardized protocol included clinical evaluation, quantitative sensory testing, and autonomic-function tests. Serum lipids and lipoproteins, glycosylated hemoglobin, and the urinary albumin excretion rate were measured in a central laboratory. results At follow-up, neuropathy had developed in 276 of 1172 patients without neuropathy at baseline (23.5 percent). The cumulative incidence of neuropathy was related to the glycosylated hemoglobin value and the duration of diabetes. After adjustment for these factors, we found that higher levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, a higher body-mass index, higher von Willebrand factor levels and urinary albumin excretion rate, hypertension, and smoking were all significantly associated with the cumulative incidence of neuropathy. After adjustment for other risk factors and diabetic complications, we found that duration of diabetes, current glycosylated hemoglobin value, change in glycosylated hemoglobin value during the follow-up period, body-mass index, and smoking remained independently associated with the incidence of neuropathy. Cardiovascular disease at baseline was associated with double the risk of neuropathy, independent of cardiovascular risk factors.

/pdf/vascular-risk-factors-and-diabetic-neuropathy-booz13gf7m.pdf

Vascular risk factors and diabetic neuropathy

ContextEffective multifactorial interventions reduce the frequent falling rate of older patients by 30% to 40%. However, clinical consensus suggests reserving these interventions for high-risk patients. Limiting fall prevention programs to high-risk patients implies that clinicians must recognize features that predict future falls.ObjectiveTo identify the prognostic value of risk factors for future falls among older patients.Data Sources and Study SelectionSearch of MEDLINE (1966-September 2004), CINAHL (1982-September 2004), and authors' own files to identify prospective cohort studies of risk factors for falls that performed a multivariate analysis of such factors.Data ExtractionTwo reviewers independently determined inclusion of articles and assessed study quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Included studies were those identifying the prognostic value of risk factors for future falls among community-dwelling persons 65 years and older. Clinically identifiable risk factors were identified across 6 domains: orthostatic hypotension, visual impairment, impairment of gait or balance, medication use, limitations in basic or instrumental activities of daily living, and cognitive impairment.Data SynthesisEighteen studies met inclusion criteria and provided a multivariate analysis including at least 1 of the risk factor domains. The estimated pretest probability of falling at least once in any given year for individuals 65 years and older was 27% (95% confidence interval, 19%-36%). Patients who have fallen in the past year are more likely to fall again [likelihood ratio range, 2.3-2.8]. The most consistent predictors of future falls are clinically detected abnormalities of gait or balance (likelihood ratio range, 1.7-2.4). Visual impairment, medication variables, decreased activities of daily living, and impaired cognition did not consistently predict falls across studies. Orthostatic hypotension did not predict falls after controlling for other factors.ConclusionsScreening for risk of falling during the clinical examination begins with determining if the patient has fallen in the past year. For patients who have not previously fallen, screening consists of an assessment of gait and balance. Patients who have fallen or who have a gait or balance problem are at higher risk of future falls.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/JAMA/articlepdf/204916/jrc60005_77_86.pdf

Will My Patient Fall

A Consensus Confe rence was convened on 16 November 1995 in Phoenix, Arizona, USA with the specific aim of generating a consensus on three specific items: the definition of orthostatic hypotension, pure autonomic failure (Bradbury Eggleston syndrome, idiopathic orthostatic hypotension, progressive autonomic failure) and multiple system atrophy. The meeting was sponsored by the American Autonomic Society, and co-sponsored by the American Academy of Neurology. The Concensus Statement was endorsed by the World Federation of Neurology, Research Committee on Autonomic Disorders. Consensus was reached on the following:

Kaufmann H

Papers

Consensus statement on the definition of orthostatic hypotension, pure autonomic failure and multiple system atrophy.