Randomized controlled trial of intravenous dexamethasone to prevent relapse in acute migraine headache

OBJECTIVES: Migraine headache is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Inflammation is thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine and there is conflicting evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on reducing early recurrences. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that dexamethasone (DEX) reduced headaches after discharge and examine the factors associated with relapse. METHODS: Consenting adults (18 and older) presenting with acute migraine at 4 EDs were enrolled. In addition to standard intravenous (IV) abortive therapy, using concealed allocation patients were randomized to receive IV DEX (15 mg) or placebo (PLA) in a double-blind fashion. Relapse was defined as a return to the ED, an urgent clinic visit, or a headache that precluded normal activity reported during follow-up telephone interviews 48-72 hours and 7 days after ED discharge. Intention to treat was used for all final analyses. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were randomized; 126 patients are included in the analysis (one patient left prior to treatment and 3 enrolled twice); 64 received DEX and 62 received PLA. Mean age was 35 years, 81% was female; most (77%) suffered from headaches at least monthly. On a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), the median pain scores were 8 at presentation, and 2 at discharge. At 48-72 hours, relapses occurred in 14/64 (22%) in the DEX group and 20/62 (32%) in the PLA groups (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3-1.3). By day 7, 18/64 (28%) in the DEX group had relapsed, compared with 25/62 (40%) in the PLA group (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3-1.3). Controlling for treatment assignment, relapse was more common when headache pain was incompletely relieved (VAS > 2) at ED discharge (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-5.4). CONCLUSIONS: The overall relapse rate differed from those previously reported; however, DEX failed to reduce headache relapses after ED discharge. Relapse was closely associated with incomplete pain relief at discharge. Further research is needed to determine the factors associated with migraine relapse.     

Emergency nurse practitioner care and emergency department patient flow: case-control study

Objective: The present study aimed to compare ED waiting times (for medical assessment and treatment), treatment times and length of stay (LOS) for patients managed by an emergency nurse practitioner candidate (ENPC) with patients managed via traditional ED care. Methods: A case–control design was used. Patients were selected using the three most common ED discharge diagnoses for ENPC managed patients: hand/wrist wounds, hand/wrist fractures and removal of plaster of Paris. The ENPC group (n = 102) consisted of patients managed by the ENPC who had ED discharge diagnoses as mentioned above. The control group (n = 623) consisted of patients with the same ED discharge diagnoses who were managed via traditional ED care. Results: There were no significant differences in median waiting times, treatment times and ED LOS between ENPC managed patients and patients managed via traditional ED processes. There appeared to be some variability between diagnostic subgroups in terms of treatment times and ED LOS. Conclusion: Patient flow outcomes for ENPC managed patients are comparable with those of patients managed via usual ED processes.     

Utilization, Diagnosis, Treatment and Cost of Migraine Treatment in the Emergency Department

Objective.— To determine the percentages of patients receiving migraine-specific therapy and to estimate the rate of unnecessary neuroimaging studies in the emergency department (ED).
Methods.— A retrospective study was conducted analyzing medical records and hospital charge data of ED visits for migraine during 2005 in 2 university-affiliated hospitals. Following a preliminary review of 23 randomly selected ED charts selected to determine the reliability of the coding process, 172 other charts were selected to include 1 visit per patient with a primary discharge diagnosis code of 346.0, 346.1, or 346.9. The diagnosis of migraine was confirmed using predefined criteria. Demographic information, treatment strategies, laboratory and neuroimaging tests, response to therapy, discharge planning, and charge data were evaluated.
Results.— Of 156 patients with completed visits, neuroimaging studies were performed in 36 patients (23%), and only 4 patients had no documented justification for obtaining imaging studies. Seventy-eight patients (50%) had a potential contraindication to receiving migraine-specific therapy. Nine patients (11.5% of eligible patients) received migraine-specific therapy. Most patients were treated with a combination of parenteral antiemetics, narcotics, or ketorolac.
Conclusion.— This analysis supports previous studies indicating the underutilization of migraine-specific treatment in the ED, and suggests that the ED is generally used as a "last resort" when the patient's home medication fails. Because of various contraindications, migraine-specific medications may not be a treatment option in up to 50% of patients seen in the ED. Although almost all of the neuroimaging studies were justified, the radiology charges were a major contributing factor to the overall financial burden of emergency migraine care.     

Primary headache in Emergency Department: prevalence, clinical features and therapeutical approach

Headache is one of the most common reported complaints in the general adult population and it accounts for between 1% and 3% of admissions to an Emergency Department (ED). The overwhelming majority of patients who present to an ED with acute primary headache (PH) have migraine and very few of them receive a specific diagnosis and then an appropriate treatment. This is due, in part, to a low likelihood of emergency physicians diagnosing the type of PH, in turn due to lack of knowledge of the IHS criteria, and also the clinical condition of the patients (pain, border type of headache, etc.) In agreement with the literature, another interesting aspect of data emerging from our experience is that few of the ED PH patients are referred to headache clinics for diagnosis and treatment, especially if they present with high levels of disability. This attitude promotes the high–cost phenomenon of repeater patients that have already been admitted to the ED for the same reason in the past. This is statistically important because it involves about 10% of the population with PH.     

Drug Interaction and Serotonin Toxicity with Opioid Use: Another Reason to Avoid Opioids in Headache and Migraine Treatment

Treatment of headache, specifically migraine attacks, has always been a challenging subject, especially for neurologist and pain specialists. Triptans are generally underutilized, despite being the gold standard abortive medication for migraine attacks. On the other hand, opioid analgesics are overused as a treatment for headache. One reason for this could be physician unfamiliarity with drug interactions between opioids and other medications, especially the possibility of serotonin toxicity. The general awareness of potential serotonin toxicity with using opioid analgesics is low. In this review, we will conduct a theoretic and evidence-based review of the potential for developing serotonin syndrome in patients who are using opioids analgesics, especially in combination with antidepressants, a common co-prescribed combination. We also review the current diagnostic criteria for serotonin syndrome and identify possible shortcomings of those criteria. Our aim is to increase the awareness of health care providers about potential drug interaction of opioid analgesics with other classes of medication. We place particular emphasis on tramadol since this drug is one of the most commonly used opioid analgesics for headache. The potential for developing serotonin syndrome is relatively high in the patients who are using opioid for pain control. The use of opioids in migraine headache is already discouraged due to the high risk of medication overuse headache and also an increase in headache-related disability (Katsarava et al. Neurology 62:788–790, 2004; Bigal and Lipton. Neurology 71:1821-8, 2008; Casucci and Cevoli. Neurol Sci. 34 Suppl 1:S125–8, 2013). This is another reason that physicians and health care providers should avoid using this class of medication for pain, specifically headache and migraine treatment.     

Clinical Significance of Brush Allodynia in Emergency Patients With Migraine

Background.— Cutaneous brush allodynia may be a practical and readily assessable marker of progression of an acute migraine attack. We determined the relative frequency of this finding in emergency department (ED) patients with acute migraine and tested the hypothesis that the presence of cutaneous brush allodynia prior to initial treatment in the ED could predict poor 2-hour and 24-hour pain intensity outcomes.
Methods.— As part of a multicenter ED-based clinical trial testing the benefit of dexamethasone vs placebo for the adjuvant parenteral treatment of acute migraine, cutaneous brush allodynia was assessed prior to treatment using an established methodology. In addition to dexamethasone or placebo, all patients received intravenous metoclopramide + diphenhydramine as primary treatment for their migraine. Pain intensity outcomes were assessed in the ED 2 hours after medication administration and again by telephone 24 hours after medication administration.
Results.— An assessment of cutaneous brush allodynia was performed in 182 migraineurs from 3 different EDs, of whom 26 (14%, 95% CI: 10-20%) had cutaneous brush allodynia. A pain-free state within 2 hours of medication administration was achieved by 46% of the allodynic patients and by 47% of the nonallodynic patients ( P  = .91). Median headache intensity over the 24 hours after ED discharge, as measured on a pain intensity scale from zero to 10, was 3 in the allodynic patients and 3 in the nonallodynic patients ( P  = .23).
Conclusions.— Cutaneous brush allodynia is an uncommon finding in the ED, occurring in fewer than 1 in 5 migraineurs. It does not seem to have prognostic relevance for the ED-based management of the acute migraine attack.     

Canadian Headache Society criteria for the diagnosis of acute migraine headache in the ED—do our patients meet these criteria?

INTRODUCTION: We previously reported that many patients who present to the ED with "migraine" headache do not meet the International Headache Society criteria (IHSC) for the diagnosis of acute migraine. Objective The aim of the study was to compare the frequency for which ED patients with migraine headache meet the Canadian Headache Society criteria (CHSC) vs the IHSC. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study, performed at a community ED. Consecutive patients who presented to study authors with a chief complaint of headache were enrolled. Historical/clinical data were collected on a standardized form. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated and Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. Mean age was 38 years. Females comprised 69% of patients. Thirty-seven percent of patients had prior ED visits for headaches. A positive family history of migraines was present in 35% of patients. Diagnostic imaging was previously performed in 44 of the enrollees to evaluate the cause of their headaches. A total of 43 (23%) patients had a prior diagnosis of migraine. Overall CHSC was met in 18% of patients, compared with 15% of patients who met IHSC. Discharge diagnosis of migraine was made in 41% of patients. Of these patients, 33% met CHSC and 28% met IHSC (P=.30). For patients with discharge diagnosis of migraine, 33% of females and 36% of males fit CHSC (P=.53), whereas 26% and 36% met IHSC (P=.34), respectively. For patients with a prior diagnosis of migraine, 32% met CHSC and 26% met IHSC (P=.24). Patients with a prior diagnosis of migraine and/or a discharge diagnosis of migraine met CHSC 31% (95% CI, 22%-40%) of the time vs 25% for the IHSC (95% CI, 16%-34%) (P=.26). Four patients without a discharge and/or previous diagnosis of migraine met CHSC; 3 met IHSC. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, only a minority of patients with headache who have prior diagnosis and/or ED diagnosis of migraine headache met CHSC. The utility of CHSC and/or IHSC to standardize ED patients for headache research may be limited.     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications

Objective.— The final section of this 3‐part review analyzes published reports involving the acute treatment of migraine with opioids, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the emergency department (ED), urgent care, and headache clinic settings, as well as post‐discharge medications. In the Conclusion, there is a general discussion of all the therapies presented in the 3 sections. Method.— Using the terms (“migraine” AND “emergency”) AND (“therapy” OR “treatment”), the author searched MEDLINE for reports from ED and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Seventy‐five reports were identified that compared the efficacy and safety of multiple acute migraine medications for rescue. Of the medications reviewed in Part 3, opioids, NSAIDs, and steroids all demonstrated some effectiveness. When used alone, nalbuphine and metamizole were superior to placebo. NSAIDs were inferior to the combination of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and dihydroergotamine (DHE) but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other dopamine antagonists. Steroids afford some protection against headache recurrence after the patient leaves the treatment center. Conclusions.— All 3 opioids most frequently studied – meperidine, tramadol, and nalbuphine – were superior to placebo in relieving migraine pain, although meperidine combined with promethazine was not. Opioid side effects included dizziness, sedation, and nausea. With ketorolac being the most frequently studied drug in the class, NSAIDs were generally well tolerated, and they may provide benefit even when given late in the migraine attack. The rate of headache recurrence within 24‐72 hours after discharge from the ED can be greater than 50%. Corticosteroids can be useful in reducing headache recurrence after discharge. As discussed in Parts 1, 2, and 3, there are effective medications for provider‐administered “rescue” in all the classes discussed. Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti‐migraine medications in the emergent setting, and their effectiveness is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in migraine pain relief. Although there are fewer studies involving sumatriptan and DHE, relatively “migraine‐specific” medications, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. Lack of comparisons with placebo and the frequent use of combinations of medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one another. When used alone, prochlorperazine, promethazine, metoclopramide, nalbuphine, and metamizole were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also are more likely to produce side effects that are difficult for a patient to tolerate (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine, and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and NSAIDs. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and DHE but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. Sumatriptan was inferior or equivalent to the neuroleptics and equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were considered. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was equivalent to that observed with droperidol or prochlorperazine. (Headache 2012;52:467‐482)     

Clinical Outcomes of Children Treated with Intravenous Prochlorperazine for Migraine in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Background: Prochlorperazine is the only treatment that has been studied so far in a randomized controlled trial and found to reduce pain at 1 h in children with migraine who presented to an emergency department (ED). Objective: To evaluate the rate of treatment failure associated with prochlorperazine used in children with severe migraine in a pediatric ED. Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients < 18 years of age who visited the ED of a tertiary care pediatric hospital between November 2005 and June 2007. All patients diagnosed with migraine by the emergency physicians were included in the study. Charts were evaluated by a data abstractor blinded to the study hypothesis using a standardized datasheet. Inter-rater agreement was measured. Prochlorperazine treatment failure was defined as either administration of further rescue therapy, a hospitalization, or a return visit to the ED within 48 h for symptom recurrence or side effects from the medication. Results: Prochlorperazine was administered in 92 episodes of migraine, including 43 confirmed by a pediatric neurologist; all received diphenhydramine to prevent akathisia. A total of 13 (14%) of these patients had a treatment failure: 8 patients received one or more further rescue therapies after the administration of prochlorperazine; 5 patients were hospitalized, including 3 who had received further rescue therapy; and 3 patients returned to the ED within 48 h due to symptom recurrence. Conclusion: There was a treatment failure rate of 14% with the use of prochlorperazine in association with diphenhydramine for severe migraine in children seen in a pediatric ED.     

Appropriateness of ambulance transportation to a suburban pediatric emergency department

Objective. To assess the appropriateness of ambulance use in patients presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED), with regard to both medical necessity and insurance status. Methods. The authors conducted a one-year retrospective chart analysis of all patients (age range 2 weeks to 19 years) who were transported via ambulance in 1994 to a suburban children's hospital ED. ED records of all patients who arrived by ambulance were abstracted for demographic data, type of insurance, chief complaint, medical interventions, discharge diagnosis, and disposition. Ambulance transportation was deemed unnecessary unless the medical record revealed any of the following criteria: 1) requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 2) respiratory distress, 3) altered mental status or seizure, 4) immobilization, 5) inability to walk, 6) admission to intensive care, 7) ambulance recommended by medical personnel, 8) motor vehicle collision, or 9) parents not on scene. Results. 43% of the ambulance patients were insured by Medicaid, compared with 29% of the overall ED population. Thus, Medicaid patients were significantly more likely to use ambulance transportation than were patients with commercial insurance (p<0.001). 28% of patients who arrived by ambulance were judged to have used the ambulance transportation unnecessarily. Of the unnecessary transports, 60% were insured by Medicaid. Thus, Medicaid patients were significantly more likely to have used ambulance transportation unnecessarily (p<0.001). The most common reason for appropriate ambulance use was seizure activity; the most common reason for inappropriate use was fever. Conclusion. Inappropriate use of ambulance transportation is common in this pediatric population, with Medicaid patients accounting for a significant majority of the misuse.     

Unscheduled return visits to the emergency department with ICU admission: A trigger tool for diagnostic error

BackgroundIt is believed that patients who return to the Emergency Department (ED) and require admission are thought to represent failures in diagnosis, treatment or discharge planning. Screening readmission rates or patients who return within 72 h have been used in ED Quality Assurance efforts. These metrics require significant effort in chart review and only rarely identify care deviations.ObjectiveThis study was conducted to evaluate the yield of reviewing ED return visits that resulted in an ICU admission. This study was conducted to evaluate the yield of reviewing ED return visits that resulted in an ICU admission. We planned to assess if the return visits with ICU admission were associated with deviations in care, and secondarily, to understand the common causes of error in this group.MethodsRetrospective review of patients presenting to a university affiliated ED between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 and returned within 14 days requiring ICU admission.ResultsFrom 1,106,606 ED visits, 511 patients returned within 14 days and were admitted to an ICU. 223 patients returned for a reason related to the index visit (43.6%). Of these related returns, 31 (13.9%) had a deviation in care on the index visit. When a standard diagnostic process of care framework was applied to these 31 cases, 47.3% represented failures in the initial diagnostic pathway.ConclusionReviewing 14-day returns leading to ICU admission, while an uncommon event, has a higher yield in the understanding of quality issues involving diagnostic as well as systems errors.     

Droperidol for acute migraine headache.

The use of intramuscular droperidol to treat acute migraine headache has not been previously reported in the emergency medicine literature. It is a promising therapy for migraine. The authors performed a pilot review of all patients receiving droperidol for migraine in our emergency department (ED) to evaluate its efficacy. We used a retrospective case series, in a suburban ED with an annual patient census of 48,000. All patients with a discharge diagnosis of migraine headache who were treated with i.m. droperidol during a consecutive 5-month period in our ED were identified. All patients received droperidol 2.5 mg intramuscular. As per ED protocol, their clinical progress was closely followed and documented at 30 minutes after drug administration (t30). Demographic and clinical variables were recorded on a standardized, closed-question, data collection instrument. The primary outcome measurement was relief of symptoms at t30 to the point that the patient felt well enough to go home without further ED intervention (symptomatic relief). Thirty-seven patients were treated (84% female), with an ED diagnosis of acute migraine with droperidol during the study period. The mean age was 36 +/- 12 years. Analgesics had been used within 24 hours before ED presentation by 62% of patients. At t30, 30 (81%) patients had symptomatic relief, 2 (5%) felt partial relief but required rescue medication, and 5 (14%) had no relief of symptoms. Drowsiness (14%) and mild akathisia (8%) were the only adverse reactions observed following drug administration. Droperidol 2.5 mg intramuscular may be a safe and effective therapy for the ED management of acute migraine headache. Randomized, controlled trials are warranted to further validate the findings of this preliminary study.     

Emergency department management of the acute headache

Headache is a common complaint of patients seeking care at an emergency department (ED). A survey of more than 16,755 walk-in patients at an ED showed that 323 (1.9%) had a chief complaint of migraine (1). Almost one sixth of these patients had used the ED more than once. In fact, migraineurs used the ED and other health care providers 2 to 5 times more than nonmigraineurs (2). Fortunately, headaches associated with significant morbidity and mortality occur infrequently (3). The ED physician must be able to address the patient's need for pain management and establish the correct diagnosis for the headache while also ruling out any possibility of organic disease or life-threatening illness. Potential problems include ensuring appropriate follow-up and avoidance of narcotic habituation.     

Emergency department management of the acute headache

Headache is a common complaint of patients seeking care at an emergency department (ED). A survey of more than 16,755 walk-in patients at an ED showed that 323 (1.9%) had a chief complaint of migraine (1). Almost one sixth of these patients had used the ED more than once. In fact, migraineurs used the ED and other health care providers 2 to 5 times more than nonmigraineurs (2). Fortunately, headaches associated with significant morbidity and mortality occur infrequently (3). The ED physician must be able to address the patient's need for pain management and establish the correct diagnosis for the headache while also ruling out any possibility of organic disease or life-threatening illness. Potential problems include ensuring appropriate follow-up and avoidance of narcotic habituation.     

Patient and Provider Perceptions of Why Patients Seek Care in Emergency Departments

Background

Little is known about why patients choose emergency departments (EDs) to receive care.

Objective

Our aim was to measure the distribution and frequency of the stated reasons why patients choose the ED for care and why primary care physicians (PCPs) think their patients utilize the ED.

Methods

The authors conducted a survey of patients presenting to an ED with 92,000 annual visits. Appropriate parametric tests were used for univariate and multivariate analysis and results were presented as frequencies with 95% confidence intervals. The authors also performed a cross-sectional survey of PCPs through a web-based survey.

Results

Of the 1515 patients approached, 1083 (71%) agreed to participate and 1062 (98%) of them completed the survey. The most common reason patients gave for coming to the ED was their belief that their problem was serious (61%), followed by being referred (35%). In addition, 48% came at the advice of a provider, family member, or friend. By self-report, 354 (33%) patients attempted to reach their PCPs and 306 (86%) of them were successful. Two hundred and seventy-five PCPs were also surveyed. The most frequent reasons PCPs thought their patients came to an ED were that the patient chose to go on their own (80%) and the patients felt that they were too sick to be seen in the PCP's office (80%).

Conclusions

The majority of patients stated that the most common reason for seeking care in an ED was that they thought their problem was serious. Almost half sought ED care on the advice of a family member, friend, or health care provider, and a sizable minority were actually referred in by a health care provider. PCPs agree that most patients come to EDs because they believe they are too sick to be seen in their office or become sick after office hours.     

The emergency department evaluation, management, and treatment of back pain

Back pain is one of the most common symptom-related complaints for visits to primary care physicians and is the most common musculoskeletal complaint that results in visits to the emergency department (ED). With recent national health care initiatives moving toward universal coverage, an increasing number of patients with common complaints such as back pain will visit the ED. The first goal of ED assessment of patients with back pain is to evaluate for potentially dangerous causes that, if not promptly recognized, could result in significant morbidity and mortality. This article focuses on the essential elements of an efficient and effective evaluation, management and treatment of patients with back pain in the ED, with special emphasis on epidural abscess, epidural compression syndrome, malignancy, spinal stenosis, and back pain in children.