BACKGROUND: Standardisation of referral pathways and the transfer of patients with acute aortic syndromes (AAS) to regional centres are recommended by NHS England in the Acute Aortic Dissection Toolkit. The aim of the Transfer of Thoracic Aortic Vascular Emergencies to Regional Specialist INstitutes Group study was to establish an interdisciplinary consensus on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS to specialist high-volume aortic centres.
METHODS: Consensus on the key aspects of interhospital transfer of patients with AAS was established using the Delphi method, in line with Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies guidelines. A national patient charity for aortic dissection was involved in the design of the Delphi study. Vascular and cardiothoracic surgeons, emergency physicians, interventional radiologists, cardiologists, intensivists and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were invited to participate via their respective professional societies.
RESULTS: Three consecutive rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were completed by 212, 101 and 58 respondents, respectively. Using predefined consensus criteria, 60 out of 117 (51%) statements from the survey were included in the consensus statement. The study concluded that patients can be taken directly to a specialist aortic centre if they have typical symptoms of AAS on the background of known aortic disease or previous aortic intervention. Accepted patients should be transferred in a category 2 ambulance (response time <18 min), ideally accompanied by transfer-trained personnel or Adult Critical Care Transfer Services. A clear plan should be agreed in case of a cardiac arrest occurring during the transfer. Patients should reach the aortic centre within 4 hours of the initial referral from their local hospital.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement is the first set of national interdisciplinary recommendations on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS. Its implementation is likely to contribute to safer and more standardised emergency referral pathways to regional high-volume specialist aortic units.

In cardiovascular research, sex and gender have not typically been considered in research design and reporting until recently. This has resulted in clinical research findings from which not only all women, but also gender-diverse individuals have been excluded. The resulting dearth of data has led to a lack of sex- and gender-specific clinical guidelines and raises serious questions about evidence-based care. Basic research has also excluded considerations of sex. Including sex and/or gender as research variables not only has the potential to improve the health of society overall now, but it also provides a foundation of knowledge on which to build future advances. The goal of this guidelines article is to provide advice on best practices to include sex and gender considerations in study design, as well as data collection, analysis, and interpretation to optimally establish rigor and reproducibility needed to inform clinical decision-making and improve outcomes. In cardiovascular physiology, incorporating sex and gender is a necessary component when optimally designing and executing research plans. The guidelines serve as the first guidance on how to include sex and gender in cardiovascular research. We provide here a beginning path toward achieving this goal and improve the ability of the research community to interpret results through a sex and gender lens to enable comparison across studies and laboratories, resulting in better health for all.

BACKGROUND: Multiple organizations have issued guidelines to address the prevention, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot ulcers. These guidelines are based on evidence review and expert opinion.

METHODS: Literature review was conducted and guidelines were reviewed to identify consensus (or lack thereof) on the nature of these recommendations, the strength of the recommendations and the level of evidence.

RESULTS: Most guidelines were not based on highest level of evidence (randomized controlled trials). A listing of recommendations for prevention, diagnosis and management was created with evidence basis for all recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS: Areas for future research were identified among recommendations based on minimal evidence, areas of controversy, or in areas of clinical care without recommendations.

.

Dementia is one of the most common disorders and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and decreased quality of life. The present guideline addresses important medical management issues including systematic medical follow-up, vascular risk factors in dementia, pain in dementia, use of antipsychotics in dementia and epilepsy in dementia.
A systematic review of the literature was carried out. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, we developed a guideline. Where recommendations based on GRADE were not possible, a good practice statement was formulated.
Systematic management of vascular risk factors should be performed in patients with mild to moderate dementia as prevention of cerebrovascular pathology may impact on the progression of dementia (Good Practice statement). Individuals with dementia (without previous stroke) and atrial fibrillation should be treated with anticoagulants (weak recommendation). Discontinuation of opioids should be considered in certain individuals with dementia (e.g. for whom there are no signs or symptoms of pain or no clear indication, or suspicion of side effects; Good Practice statement). Behavioral symptoms in persons with dementia should not be treated with mild analgesics (weak recommendation). In all patients with dementia treated with opioids, assessment of the individual risk-benefit ratio should be performed at regular intervals. Regular, preplanned medical follow-up should be offered to all patients with dementia. The setting will depend on the organization of local health services and should, as a minimum, include general practitioners with easy access to dementia specialists (Good Practice statement). Individuals with dementia and agitation and/or aggression should be treated with atypical antipsychotics only after all non-pharmacological measures have been proven to be without benefit or in the case of severe self-harm or harm to others (weak recommendation). Antipsychotics should be discontinued after cessation of behavioral disturbances and in patients in whom there are side effects (Good Practice statement). For treatment of epilepsy in individuals with dementia, newer anticonvulsants should be considered as first-line therapy (Good Practice statement).
This GRADE-based guideline offers recommendations on several important medical issues in patients with dementia, and thus adds important guidance for clinicians. For some issues, very little or no evidence was identified, highlighting the importance of further studies within these areas.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semiurgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/nonurgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions.

There is currently intense multidisciplinary interest and a maturing body of literature regarding laser treatments for traumatic scars, but international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes have not yet caught up with current knowledge and practice in many centers. The authors intend to highlight the tremendous potential of laser techniques, offer recommendations for safe and efficacious treatment, and promote wider patient access guided by future high-quality research.
An international panel of 26 dermatologists and plastic and reconstructive surgeons from 13 different countries and a variety of practice backgrounds was self-assembled to develop updated consensus recommendations for the laser treatment of traumatic scars. A three-step modified Delphi method took place between March 2018 and March 2019 consisting of two rounds of emailed questionnaires and supplementary face-to-face meetings. The panel members approved the final manuscript via email correspondence, and the threshold for consensus was at least 80% concurrence among the panel members.
The manuscript includes extensive detailed discussion regarding a variety of laser platforms commonly used for traumatic scar management such as vascular lasers and ablative and non-ablative fractional lasers, special considerations such as coding and laser treatments in skin of color, and 25 summary consensus recommendations.
Lasers are a first-line therapy in the management of traumatic scars and contractures, and patients without access to these treatments may not be receiving the best available care after injury. Updated international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes, additional high-quality research, and patient access should reflect this status. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Visual loss (blindness) caused by injection of soft tissue fillers is a rare but devastating issue to both patient and practitioner. There is a lack of any structured protocol in the management of this problem AIMS: To produce a pathway for the management of hyaluronic acid aesthetic interventional induced visual loss that was based on the current available literature and guidelines. evidence proposed guidance for the practical management of this problem. was evaluated and a pathway has been developed for patient management and specialist advice METHOD: A consensus group experts involved in aesthetic intervention, visual loss research and with experience in dealing with visual loss assessed the current literature and proposed guidelines available. Using the protocols available a pathway for the treatment of aesthetic interventional induced visual loss was proposed.
RESULTS: The group produce a set of guidelines for the practitioner to use as an emergency situation and for use in a delayed presentation. The group also produced guidelines for specialists to use in a secondary care setting.
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are based on current publications and or consensus view as there is still a lack of robust Level I data to support any particular intervention therapy.

Over the past decades, ultrasound (US) has gained its place in the armamentarium of monitoring tools in the intensive care unit (ICU). Critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) is the combination of general CCUS (lung and pleural, abdominal, vascular) and CC echocardiography, allowing prompt assessment and diagnosis in combination with vascular access and therapeutic intervention. This review summarises the findings, challenges lessons from the 3rd Course on Acute Care Ultrasound (CACU) held in November 2015, Antwerp, Belgium. It covers the different modalities of CCUS; touching on the various aspects of training, clinical benefits and potential benefits. Despite the benefits of CCUS, numerous challenges remain, including the delivery of CCUS training to future intensivists. Some of these are discussed along with potential solutions from a number of national European professional societies. There is a need for an international agreed consensus on what modalities are necessary and how best to deliver training in CCUS.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology coordinated a meeting of experts to review and revise its previous 2011 guidelines for clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs. As before, levels of evidence were rated using accepted standards which were then translated into grades of recommendation A-D, with A having the strongest evidence base (from randomised controlled trials) and D the weakest (case studies or expert opinion). Current clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia have sufficient accuracy to be applied in clinical practice (B) and both structural (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) and functional (positron emission tomography and single photon emission computerised tomography) brain imaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in particular situations (B). Cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) are effective for cognition in mild to moderate Alzheimer\'s disease (A), memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer\'s disease (A) and combination therapy (cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine) may be beneficial (B). Drugs should not be stopped just because dementia severity increases (A). Until further evidence is available other drugs, including statins, anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin E, nutritional supplements and Ginkgo biloba, cannot be recommended either for the treatment or prevention of Alzheimer\'s disease (A). Neither cholinesterase inhibitors nor memantine are effective in those with mild cognitive impairment (A). Cholinesterase inhibitors are not effective in frontotemporal dementia and may cause agitation (A), though selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may help behavioural (but not cognitive) features (B). Cholinesterase inhibitors should be used for the treatment of people with Lewy body dementias (both Parkinson\'s disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies), and memantine may be helpful (A). No drugs are clearly effective in vascular dementia, though cholinesterase inhibitors are beneficial in mixed dementia (B). Early evidence suggests multifactorial interventions may have potential to prevent or delay the onset of dementia (B). Though the consensus statement focuses on medication, psychological interventions can be effective in addition to pharmacotherapy, both for cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms. Many novel pharmacological approaches involving strategies to reduce amyloid and/or tau deposition in those with or at high risk of Alzheimer\'s disease are in progress. Though results of pivotal studies in early (prodromal/mild) Alzheimer\'s disease are awaited, results to date in more established (mild to moderate) Alzheimer\'s disease have been equivocal and no disease modifying agents are either licensed or can be currently recommended for clinical use.