Search

Aims We aimed to identify all syncope units (SUs) in the Netherlands and assess the extent to which these SUs fulfil the essential requirements outlined by the consensus statements of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Society of Cardiology syncope guidelines. For this, we developed the SU-19 score, a novel guideline based validation tool for best practice. Methods and results All outpatient clinics of cardiology, neurology, and internal medicine in the Netherlands were screened for presence of any form of structured specialized syncope care. If present, these were included as SUs and requested to complete a questionnaire regarding syncope care. We assessed all SUs using the SU-19 score regarding structure (3 points), available tests (12 points), and initial evaluation (4 points). Twenty SUs were identified in the Netherlands, both academic (5/20) and non-academic hospitals (15/20), 17/20 reported multidisciplinary involvement during initial evaluation. In 19/20, neurology, cardiology, or both were responsible for the syncope management. Non-physicians were involved performing the head-up tilt test (44%) and initial evaluation (40%). The mean SU-19 score was 18.0 ± 1.1, 45% achieved the maximum score of 19 points. Variations were observed in protocols for active standing test, carotid sinus massage, and head-up tilt test. Conclusion There is a network of 20 SUs in the Netherlands. Forty-five per cent fully met the SU-19 score (mean 18.0 ± 1.1). Slight variety existed in protocols for autonomic function tests. Neurology and cardiology were mostly involved in syncope management. Non-physicians play an important role in syncope care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe. Methods: We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders. Results: Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN–EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020–2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The objective was to investigate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic on European clinical autonomic practice. Methods: Eighty‐four neurology‐driven or interdisciplinary autonomic centers in 22 European countries were invited to fill in a web‐based survey between September and November 2021. Results: Forty‐six centers completed the survey (55%). During the first pandemic year, the number of performed tilt‐table tests, autonomic outpatient and inpatient visits decreased respectively by 50%, 45% and 53%, and every third center reported major adverse events due to postponed examinations or visits. The most frequent newly diagnosed or worsened cardiovascular autonomic disorders after COVID‐19 infection included postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, orthostatic hypotension and recurrent vasovagal syncope, deemed to be likely related to the infection by ≥50% of the responders. Forty‐seven percent of the responders also reported about people with new onset of orthostatic intolerance but negative tilt‐table findings, and 16% about people with psychogenic pseudosyncope after COVID‐19. Most patients were treated non‐pharmacologically and symptomatic recovery at follow‐up was observed in ≥45% of cases. By contrast, low frequencies of newly diagnosed cardiovascular autonomic disorders following COVID‐19 vaccination were reported, most frequently postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and recurrent vasovagal syncope, and most of the responders judged a causal association unlikely. Non‐pharmacological measures were the preferred treatment choice, with 50%–100% recovery rates at follow‐up. Conclusions: Cardiovascular autonomic disorders may develop or worsen following a COVID‐19 infection, whilst the association with COVID‐19 vaccines remains controversial. Despite the severe pandemic impact on European clinical autonomic practice, a specialized diagnostic work‐up was pivotal to identify non‐autonomic disorders in people with post‐COVID‐19 orthostatic complaints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: Disorders of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are common conditions, but it is unclear whether access to ANS healthcare provision is homogeneous across European countries. The aim of this study was to identify neurology‐driven or interdisciplinary clinical ANS laboratories in Europe, describe their characteristics and explore regional differences. Methods: We contacted the European national ANS and neurological societies, as well as members of our professional network, to identify clinical ANS laboratories in each country and invite them to answer a web‐based survey. Results: We identified 84 laboratories in 22 countries and 46 (55%) answered the survey. All laboratories perform cardiovascular autonomic function tests, and 83% also perform sweat tests. Testing for catecholamines and autoantibodies are performed in 63% and 56% of laboratories, and epidermal nerve fiber density analysis in 63%. Each laboratory is staffed by a median of two consultants, one resident, one technician and one nurse. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of head‐up tilt tests/laboratory/year is 105 (49–251). Reflex syncope and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension are the most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular ANS disorders. Thirty‐five centers (76%) have an ANS outpatient clinic, with a median (IQR) of 200 (100–360) outpatient visits/year; 42 centers (91%) also offer inpatient care (median 20 [IQR 4–110] inpatient stays/year). Forty‐one laboratories (89%) are involved in research activities. We observed a significant difference in the geographical distribution of ANS services among European regions: 11 out of 12 countries from North/West Europe have at least one ANS laboratory versus 11 out of 21 from South/East/Greater Europe (p = 0.021). Conclusions: This survey highlights disparities in the availability of healthcare services for people with ANS disorders across European countries, stressing the need for improved access to specialized care in South, East and Greater Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In general, the development of CNS metastases of breast cancer depends on several prognostic factors, including younger age and a negative hormone receptor status. Also, the presence of a breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) germline mutation and expression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2/neu) proto-oncogene seem to contribute to an increased rate of development of CNS metastases.The choice of appropriate therapy for brain metastases also depends on prognostic factors, including the age of the patient, the Karnofsky performance score, the number of brain metastases and the presence of systemic disease. Surgery followed by whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is generally restricted to ambulant patients with a single brain metastasis without active extracranial disease. In patients who have two to four metastases, stereotactic focal radiotherapy (i.e. radiosurgery) with or without WBRT is usually indicated. In the remainder of patients, WBRT alone provides adequate palliation. Although breast carcinoma is sensitive to chemotherapy, the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of brain metastases is still unclear. Objective responses after cyclophosphamide-based therapies were reported in studies performed in the 1980s. Subgroup analysis of data from a randomised study indicates that survival may improve if WBRT is combined with the radiosensitiser efaproxiral. Interestingly, the Her2/neu antibody trastuzumab, which does not cross the blood-brain barrier, produces systemic responses and enhanced survival, without a clear effect on brain metastases.Breast cancer constitutes the most common solid primary tumour leading to leptomeningeal disease. Clinical symptoms such as cranial nerve dysfunction or a cauda equina syndrome can be treated with local radiotherapy. A randomised study in patients with leptomeningeal disease secondary to breast cancer has revealed that intrathecal chemotherapy is associated with substantially more adverse effects than non-intrathecal treatment, without a clear benefit in terms of response or survival.Intramedullary metastasis is rare but often presents with a rapidly progressive myelopathy. Local radiotherapy may preserve neurological function.Epidural spinal cord metastasis occurs in approximately 4% of patients and can lead to paraplegia. A randomised study has shown that surgical intervention together with local radiotherapy is superior to local radiotherapy alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]