Management of thunderclap headache in the emergency room: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of red flags is crucial for the accurate the diagnosis of headache disorders, especially for thunderclap headache. We analysed if secondary headache disorders were adequately ruled out in patients that presented to the emergency room with thunderclap headache.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we screened all patients that visited the emergency room for headache, including those that described thunderclap headache. We measured the frequency with which secondary causes were not adequately ruled out. We analysed the order of the exams, the final diagnosis, and the time elapsed between arrival, initial request for imaging, and the completion of the imaging.

RESULTS

We screened 2132 patients, and 42 (1.9%) fulfilled eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 ± 17.1 years, and 57% of patients were female. For 22 (52.4%) patients, the work-up was incomplete. Vascular study was missing in 16 (38.1%) patients, cerebrospinal fluid evaluation in nine (21.4%), and magnetic resonance imaging in seven (16.7%), with multiple assessments missing in six (14.3%). There were ten different combinations in which the exams were performed, with the most frequent being the second exam's cerebral spinal fluid evaluation in 18 (52.9%) and the computed tomography angiogram in 10 (29.4%). A secondary cause of thunderclap headache was found in 16 (38.1%) patients, and four (9.5%) had a primary headache diagnosis after an adequate and complete study.

CONCLUSIONS

Thunderclap onset was described in one of every 50 patients that visited the emergency room for headache. More than half of these patients were not adequately managed. More than a third of thunderclap headache patients had a secondary cause.

Subarachnoid haemorrhage guidelines and clinical practice: a cross-sectional study of emergency department consultants' and neurospecialists' views and risk tolerances

OBJECTIVES

To establish if emergency medicine and neuroscience specialist consultants have different risk tolerances for investigation of suspected spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), and to establish if their risk-benefit appraisals concur with current guidelines.

SETTING

4 major neuroscience centres in London.

PARTICIPANTS

58 consultants in emergency medicine and neuroscience specialities (neurology, neurosurgery and neuroradiology) participated in an anonymous survey.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the highest stated acceptable risk of missing SAH in the neurologically intact patient presenting with sudden onset headache. Secondary outcome measures included agreement with guideline recommendations, risk/benefit appraisal and required performance of diagnostic tests, including lumbar puncture.

RESULTS

Emergency department clinicians accepted almost 3 times the risk of a missed SAH diagnosis compared with the neuroscience specialists (2.8% vs 1.1%; p=0.02), were more likely to accept a higher risk of missed diagnosis for the benefit of a non-invasive test (p=0.04) and were more likely to disagree with current published guidelines stipulating the need for LP in all CT-negative cases (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Divergence from recognised procedures for SAH investigation is often criticised and attributed to a lack of knowledge of guidelines. This study indicates that divergence from guidelines may be explained by alternative risk-benefit appraisals made by doctors with their patients. Guideline recommendations may gain wider acceptance if they accommodate the requirements of the doctors and patients using them. Further study of clinical risk tolerance may help explain patterns of diagnostic test use and other variations in healthcare delivery.