Anglo-French neurological interactions in the 19th and early 20th centuries: Physicians,places and events

The development of neurology as an independent discipline in the mid-19th century was considerably influenced by the almost simultaneous foundation of the Charcot School at the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris and the National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic and it's School at Queen Square in London in the 1860's. We have reviewed the early interactions between Charcot's school and the leading neurologists at the National Hospital and also discussed their neurological antecedents and subsequent links up to the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914. Earlier interactions involved Trousseau and Duchenne in France and Graves, Todd, Laycock and Allbutt in Britain. The French Brown–Séquard was one of the first two physicians appointed to the National Hospital. Charcot was a frequent visitor to Britain culminating in his influential role in the 1881 International Medical Congress in London. He first suggested the terms “Parkinson's Disease” and “Jacksonian Epilepsy”. He attracted numerous British visitors to Paris and his studies of hysteria were influenced by Laycock, Todd and Russell Reynolds. Hughlings Jackson drew upon the anatomical studies of Gratiolet in his interactions with Broca and Charcot which influenced French views on aphasia, epilepsy and cortical localisation. Ball, an Englishman, was the first Professor of mental and brain diseases in Paris in 1877. Bruce in Edinburgh and Kinnier Wilson in London both maintained frequent contacts with Paris, where the latter first presented his studies of hepatolenticular degeneration in 1912. The Entente Cordiale of 1904 led to further interactions with the leading role of the French and British physicians Raymond and Duckworth. Two outstanding British women, Elizabeth Garrett and Blanche Edwards, qualified in Medicine in Paris with neurological interests. Our review emphasises the constructive influence of the French and British Schools on each other and thus on the development of neurology. The French influence was primarily the establishment of the anatomo-clinical method and the use of photographic illustrations in publications. The British School influence was its Clinical Assessment Skills and scientific studies of newly recognised diseases and concepts and its early development of neurosurgery.     

Neuropathology in Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital: Past,present and prospect

Pitié and La Salpêtrière, both founded in the17th century, were for long two distinct hospitals until they merged in 1964. The name La Salpêtrière is inherited from the initial purpose of the buildings designed to produce saltpeter for gun powder. But the place was soon transformed into an asylum to shelter the poor and the insane. From the care of this underprivileged population, alienists such as Pinel have paved the way for modern medicine for the mentally ill at the time of the French Revolution. In the second half of the 19th century, Jean-Martin Charcot and his students laid the foundations of modern neurology from the observation of the large population hosted in La Salpêtrière, mostly women with severe chronic diseases. Charcot led clinicopathological studies in almost all the fields of nervous system disorders. His successors (including Raymond, Dejerine, Pierre Marie) maintained the same close relationship between clinical neurology and neuropathology. In parallel with the development of neurosurgery at Pitié hospital, neuropathology first spread through small laboratories attached to clinical departments. The merger of the two hospitals in the early '60s coincided with the creation of a large university hospital in which the care and study of diseases of the nervous system were preponderant. An independent laboratory of neuropathology was created, led by Raymond Escourolle. This period was on the eve of important developments in neuroscience around the world. Today, the Pitié-Salpêtrière neuropathology laboratory still plays a central role between neurology and neurosurgery clinics and major research institutes such as the Brain Institute, callled Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle (ICM), and the Institute of Myology.     

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

Background and ObjectiveTo combine the results of the best scientific evidence in order to compare the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and in sinus rhythm (SR) and to determine the effect of atrioventricular nodal ablation in AF patients.MethodsThe electronic databases PubMed, B-On and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched, and manual searches were performed, for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies up to November 2012. The endpoints analyzed were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and response to CRT.ResultsWe included 19 studies involving 5324 patients: 1399 in AF and 3925 in SR. All-cause mortality was more likely in patients with AF compared to patients in SR (OR=1.69; 95% CI: 1.20–2.37; p=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (OR=1.36; 95% CI: 0.92–2.01; p=0.12). AF was associated with an increased likelihood of lack of response to CRT (OR=1.41; 95% CI: 1.15–1.73; p=0.001). Among subjects with AF, ablation of the atrioventricular node was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (OR=0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.80; p=0.008), cardiovascular death (OR=0.39; 95% CI: 0.20–0.75; p=0.005) and the number of non-responders to CRT (OR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.10–0.90; p=0.03).ConclusionsThe presence of AF is associated with increased likelihood of all-cause death and non-response to CRT, compared to patients in SR. However, many patients with AF benefit from CRT. Atrioventricular nodal ablation appears to increase the benefits of CRT in patients with AF.