BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Certain patients with balance disorders report a 'visual vertigo' in which their symptoms are provoked or aggravated by specific visual contexts (e.g. supermarkets, driving or movement of objects). In order to determine the causes of visual vertigo (VV), we assessed symptoms, anxiety and the influence of disorienting visual stimuli in 21 such patients. In 17 out of 21 patients, a peripheral vestibular disorder was diagnosed. Sixteen bilateral labyrinthine-defective subjects (LDS) and 25 normal subjects served as controls. Questionnaire assessment showed that the levels of trait anxiety and childhood motion sickness in the three subject groups were not significantly different. Reporting of autonomic symptoms and somatic anxiety was higher than normal in both patient groups but not significantly different between LDS and VV patients. Handicap levels were not different in the two patient groups, but the reporting of vestibular symptoms was higher in the VV than in the LDS group. The experimental stimuli required subjects to set the subjective visual vertical in three visual conditions: total darkness, in front of a tilted luminous frame (rod and frame test) and in front of a large disc rotating in the frontal plane (rod and disc test). Body sway was also measured in four visual conditions: eyes closed, eyes open, facing the tilted frame and during disc rotation. In psychophysical and postural tests, both LDS and VV patients showed: (i) a significant increase in the tilt of the visual vertical both with the static tilted frame and with the rotating disc; and (ii) an increased postural deviation whilst facing the tilted frame and the rotating disc. The ratio between sway path with eyes closed and eyes open (i.e. the stabilizing effect of vision) was increased in the LDS, but not in VV patients, compared with normal subjects. In contrast, the ratio between sway path during disc rotation and sway path during eyes open (i.e. the destabilizing effect of a moving visual stimulus) was increased in the VV patients but not in LDS. Taken together, these data show that VV patients have abnormally large perceptual and postural responses to disorienting visual environments. VV is not related to trait anxiety or a past history of motion sickness. The results indicate that VV emerges in vestibular patients if they have increased visual dependence and difficulty in resolving conflict between visual and vestibulo-proprioceptive inputs. It is argued that treating these patients with visual motion desensitization, e.g. repeated optokinetic stimulation, should be beneficial.

To investigate excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), the reasons for which have not yet been clarified, polysomnography (PSG) and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) were performed in 46 patients with PD, and, in addition, PSG was performed in 30 healthy controls. Assessment included Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Hamilton Test (HT) for depression. Fifty percent of PD patients reported EDS (ESS, 10 +/- 4.5 vs. 6.9 +/- 3.7; P = 0.01). Compared with controls, PD patients as a group had lower sleep efficiency (65 +/- 22 vs. 77 +/- 14; P = 0.03), a longer Stage 2 (73 +/- 12 vs. 67 +/- 12; P = 0.03), and a shorter rapid eye movement stage (8 +/- 8 vs. 17 +/- 8; P < 0.001). Clinical data and sleep characteristics were similar in PD with/without EDS. Of interest, patients treated with clonazepam (CLNZ) had lower EDS than those without CLNZ (ESS, 7.9 +/- 4.7 vs. 11.3 +/- 4.0; P = 0.03). These patients suffered less periodic leg movement during sleep (2.1 +/- 2.7 vs. 12.4 +/- 28; P = 0.04), which might explain the finding. No correlation was found between ESS, MSLT, and all other clinical features analyzed. In PD patients, according to the data obtained, severity of EDS does not depend on any specific clinical factor and the etiology is probably multifactorial. Paradoxically, PD patients treated with CLNZ were less sleepy than patients not treated with CLNZ.

Our study demonstrates that patients with BPPV+ do not have a worse prognosis with respect to resolution of positional nystagmus, on performing the particle repositioning procedure, compared with patients with uncomplicated BPPV. However, they do suffer incomplete resolution of symptoms because of a coincidental anterior or horizontal canal dysfunction and otolithic or central vestibular dysfunction. It appears that the majority of patients with BPPV+ need further vestibular rehabilitation after the particle repositioning maneuver.