The impairment of cardiac BRS may be important in explaining the increased BP variability after stroke. There was no significant difference in surrogate measures of sympathovagal activity between acute stroke patients and control subjects, but right hemisphere stroke patients had a significant alteration in the sympathovagal balance of pulse interval variability compared with left hemisphere stroke patients. This sympathetic predominance in right hemisphere strokes may be important in the development of cardiac arrhythmias after stroke. The prognostic implications of these findings need to be further explored.

Baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) is increasingly used as a prognostic indicator in cardiovascular disease. Traditionally it has been measured using invasive techniques with pharmacological manipulation of blood pressure (BP). With the advent of newer methods to measure pulse interval and beat-to-beat changes in BP it is now possible, using sophisticated mathematical modelling techniques, to calculate cardiac BRS non-invasively. However, there are virtually no data on the reproducibility of these newer techniques and what factors may affect the repeatability of these measurements. We studied 39 subjects, aged 22-82 years, with a supine systolic BP range 97-160 mmHg and a diastolic BP range 57-94 mmHg on two occasions between 1 week and 6 months apart. Cardiac BRS was measured by power spectral analysis using Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT), sequence analysis (using up, down and combined sequences) and from phase IV of the Valsalva manoeuvre. There was no significant difference between visits for any of the methods for measuring cardiac BRS. Mean BRS values were similar for FFT (16.7 +/- 11.2 ms/mmHg) and sequence analysis (15.8 +/- 11.4 ms/mmHg); however, results using phase IV of the Valsalva manoeuvre were significantly lower (8.1 +/- 2.9 ms/mmHg, p < 0.0001). The coefficient of variation for the five measures of cardiac BRS varied from 16.8% for Valsalva-derived values to 26.1% for 'down' sequence analysis. However, in ten subjects BRS could not be calculated from the Valsalva manoeuvre. None of the independent variables tested (including age, BP levels and time between testing) significantly influenced the degree of repeatability. In summary, there appears to be little difference between these non-invasive methods in their degree of reproducibility. These techniques would seem suitable for longitudinal studies of changes in cardiac BRS and overcome many of the problems associated with the invasive pharmacological methods.

Objective: to determine the clinical effectiveness of a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, for community-dwelling older people at high risk of future falls identified through a screening process.Design: multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting: eight general practices and three day hospitals based in the East Midlands, UK.Participants: three hundred and sixty-four participants, mean age 79 years, with a median of three falls risk factors per person at baseline.Interventions: a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, consisting of strength and balance training, a medical review and a home hazards assessment.Main outcome measure: rate of falls over 12 months of follow-up, recorded using self-completed monthly diaries.Results: one hundred and seventy-two participants in each arm contributed to the primary outcome analysis. The overall falls rate during follow-up was 1.7 falls per person-year in the intervention arm compared with 2.0 falls per person-year in the control arm. The stratum-adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.86 (95% CI 0.73–1.01), P = 0.08, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.51–1.03), P = 0.07 when adjusted for baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control arms in any secondary outcomes.Conclusion: this trial did not conclusively demonstrate the benefit of a day hospital-delivered multifactorial falls prevention programme, in a population of older people identified as being at high risk of a future fall.

IntroductionExacerbations of COPD requiring hospital admission are burdensome to patients and health services. Audit enables benchmarking performance between units and against national standards, and supports quality improvement. We summarise 23 years of UK audit for hospitalised COPD exacerbations to better understand which features of audit design have had most impact.MethodPilot audits were performed in 1997 and 2001, with national cross-sectional audits in 2003, 2008 and 2014. Continuous audit commenced in 2017. Overall, 96% of eligible units took part in cross-sectional audit, 86% in the most recent round of continuous audit. We synthesised data from eight rounds of national COPD audit.ResultsClinical outcomes were observed to change at the same time as changes in delivery of care: length of stay halved from 8 to 4 days between 1997 and 2014, alongside wider availability of integrated care. Process indicators did not generally improve with sequential cross-sectional audit. Under continuous audit with quality improvement support, process indicators linked to financial incentives (early specialist review (55–66%) and provision of a discharge bundle (53–74%)) improved more rapidly than those not linked (availability of spirometry (40–46%) and timely noninvasive ventilation (21–24%)).ConclusionCareful piloting and engagement can result in successful roll-out of cross-sectional national audit in a high-burden disease. Audit outcome measures and process indicators may be affected by changes in care pathways. Sequential cross-sectional national audit alone was not generally accompanied by improvements in care. However, improvements in process indicators were seen when continuous audit was combined with quality improvement support and, in particular, financial incentives.