Post-lumbar puncture headache is reduced with use of atraumatic needles in ALS

Preventing Post-Lumbar Puncture Headache

Post-lumbar puncture headache is the main adverse event from lumbar puncture and occurs in 3.5% to 33% of patients, causing functional and socio-professional disability. We searched the post-lumbar puncture headache literature and, based on this review and personal expertise, identified and addressed 19 frequently asked questions regarding post-lumbar puncture headache risk factors and prevention. Among the nonmodifiable factors, older age is associated with a lower incidence of post-lumbar puncture headache, while female sex, lower body mass index, and history of headache might be associated with increased risk. The use of atraumatic, noncutting needles is the most effective intervention for post-lumbar puncture headache prevention. These needles are not more difficult to use than cutting needles. Other commonly recommended measures (eg, fluid supplementation, caffeine) appear unhelpful, and some (eg, bed rest) may worsen post-lumbar puncture headache.

Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases

The past decade has seen tremendous efforts in biomarker discovery and validation for neurodegenerative diseases. The source and type of biomarkers has continued to grow for central nervous system diseases, from biofluid-based biomarkers (blood or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)), to nucleic acids, tissue, and imaging. While DNA remains a predominant biomarker used to identify familial forms of neurodegenerative diseases, various types of RNA have more recently been linked to familial and sporadic forms of neurodegenerative diseases during the past few years. Imaging approaches continue to evolve and are making major contributions to target engagement and early diagnostic biomarkers. Incorporation of biomarkers into drug development and clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases promises to aid in the development and demonstration of target engagement and drug efficacy for neurologic disorders. This review will focus on recent advancements in developing biomarkers for clinical utility in Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Consensus guidelines for lumbar puncture in patients with neurological diseases

Introduction

Cerebrospinal fluid collection by lumbar puncture (LP) is performed in the diagnostic workup of several neurological brain diseases. Reluctance to perform the procedure is among others due to a lack of standards and guidelines to minimize the risk of complications, such as post-LP headache or back pain.

Methods

We provide consensus guidelines for the LP procedure to minimize the risk of complications. The recommendations are based on (1) data from a large multicenter LP feasibility study (evidence level II-2), (2) systematic literature review on LP needle characteristics and post-LP complications (evidence level II-2), (3) discussion of best practice within the Joint Programme Neurodegenerative Disease Research Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's Disease and Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis consortia (evidence level III).

Results

Our consensus guidelines address contraindications, as well as patient-related and procedure-related risk factors that can influence the development of post-LP complications.

Discussion

When an LP is performed correctly, the procedure is well tolerated and accepted with a low complication rate.

Needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH)

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most common complications of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar punctures. PDPH is defined as any headache occurring after a lumbar puncture that worsens within 15 minutes of sitting or standing and is relieved within 15 minutes of the patient lying down. Researchers have suggested many types of interventions to help prevent PDPH. It has been suggested that aspects such as needle tip and gauge can be modified to decrease the incidence of PDPH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of needle tip design (traumatic versus atraumatic) and diameter (gauge) on the prevention of PDPH in participants who have undergone dural puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic causes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as trial registries via the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in September 2016. We adopted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. The search terms we used were a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text terms for both interventions (lumbar puncture in neurological, anaesthesia or myelography settings) and headache.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in any clinical/research setting where dural puncture had been used in participants of all ages and both genders, which compared different tip designs or diameters for prevention of PDPH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies in the review; 66 studies with 17,067 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. An additional 18 studies are awaiting classification and 12 are ongoing. Fifteen of the 18 studies awaiting classification mainly correspond to congress summaries published before 2010, in which the available information does not allow the complete evaluation of all their risks of bias and characteristics. Our main outcome was prevention of PDPH, but we also assessed the onset of severe PDPH, headache in general and adverse events. The quality of evidence was moderate for most of the outcomes mainly due to risk of bias issues. For the analysis, we undertook three main comparisons: 1) traumatic needles versus atraumatic needles; 2) larger gauge traumatic needles versus smaller gauge traumatic needles; and 3) larger gauge atraumatic needles versus smaller gauge atraumatic needles. For each main comparison, if data were available, we performed a subgroup analysis evaluating lumbar puncture indication, age and posture.For the first comparison, the use of traumatic needles showed a higher risk of onset of PDPH compared to atraumatic needles (36 studies, 9378 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 2.67, I² = 9%).In the second comparison of traumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH, with the exception of one study comparing 26 and 27 gauge needles (one study, 658 participants, RR 6.47, 95% CI 2.55 to 16.43).In the third comparison of atraumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH.We observed no significant difference in the risk of paraesthesia, backache, severe PDPH and any headache between traumatic and atraumatic needles. Sensitivity analyses of PDPH results between traumatic and atraumatic needles omitting high risk of bias studies showed similar results regarding the benefit of atraumatic needles in the prevention of PDPH (three studies, RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.15; I² = 51%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that atraumatic needles reduce the risk of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) without increasing adverse events such as paraesthesia or backache. The studies did not report very clearly on aspects related to randomization, such as random sequence generation and allocation concealment, making it difficult to interpret the risk of bias in the included studies. The moderate quality of the evidence for traumatic versus atraumatic needles suggests that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.