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

The clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD) is based on the identification of some combination of the cardinal motor signs of bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability, but few attempts have been made to develop explicit diagnostic criteria. We propose a clinical diagnostic classification based on a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the characteristic clinical features of PD. Three levels of diagnostic confidence are differentiated: Definite, Probable, and Possible. The diagnoses of Possible and Probable PD are based on clinical criteria alone. Neuropathologic confirmation is required for the diagnosis of Definite PD in patients with the clinical diagnosis of Possible or Probable PD. Criteria for histopathologic confirmation of PD are also presented.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/NEUR/articlepdf/774675/nsa7701.pdf

Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson Disease

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)

OBJECTIVE\nTo develop a standardized nomenclature system for the neuropsychiatric syndromes of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE).\n\n\nMETHODS\nAn international, multidisciplinary committee representing rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, neuropsychology, and hematology developed case definitions, reporting standards, and diagnostic testing recommendations. Before and after the meeting, clinician committee members assigned diagnoses to sets of vignettes randomly generated from a pool of 108 NPSLE patients. To assess whether the nomenclature system improved diagnostic agreement, a consensus index was developed and pre- and postmeeting scores were compared by t-tests.\n\n\nRESULTS\nCase definitions including diagnostic criteria, important exclusions, and methods of ascertainment were developed for 19 NPSLE syndromes. Recommendations for standard reporting requirements, minimum laboratory evaluation, and imaging techniques were formulated. A short neuropsychological test battery for the diagnosis of cognitive deficits was proposed. In the postmeeting exercise, a statistically significant improvement in diagnostic agreement was observed.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests. It is intended to facilitate and enhance clinical research, particularly multicenter studies, and reporting. In clinical settings, consultation with other specialists may be required. It should be useful for didactic purposes but should not be used uncritically or as a substitute for a clinical diagnosis. The complete case definitions are available on the ACR World Wide Web site: http://www.rheumatology .org/ar/ar.html.

D. H.P. Streeten

Papers

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

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