Objective To describe the epidemiology of nontraumatic headache in adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Background Headache is a common reason for presentation to EDs. Little is known about the epidemiology, investigation, and treatment of nontraumatic headache in patients attending EDs internationally. Methods An international, multicenter, observational, cross‐sectional study was conducted over one calendar month in 2019. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with nontraumatic headache as the main presenting complaint. Exclusion criteria were recent head trauma, missing records, interhospital transfers, re‐presentation with same headache as a recent visit, and headache as an associated symptom. Data collected included demographics, clinical assessment, investigation, treatment, and outcome. Results We enrolled 4536 patients (67 hospitals, 10 countries). “Thunderclap” onset was noted in 14.2% of cases (644/4536). Headache was rated as severe in 27.2% (1235/4536). New neurological examination findings were uncommon (3.2%; 147/4536). Head computed tomography (CT) was performed in 36.6% of patients (1661/4536), of which 9.9% showed clinically important pathology (165/1661). There was substantial variation in CT scan utilization between countries (15.9%–75.0%). More than 30 different diagnoses were made. Presumed nonmigraine benign headache accounted for 45.4% of cases (2058/4536) with another 24.3% classified as migraine (1101/4536). A small subgroup of patients have a serious secondary cause for their headache (7.1%; 323/4536) with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), stroke, neoplasm, non‐SAH intracranial hemorrhage/hematoma, and meningitis accounting for about 1% each. Most patients were treated with simple analgesics (paracetamol, aspirin, or nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory agents). Most patients were discharged home (83.8%; 3792/4526). In‐hospital mortality was 0.3% (11/4526). Conclusion Diagnosis and management of headache in the ED is challenging. A small group of patients have a serious secondary cause for their symptoms. There is wide variation in the use of neuroimaging and treatments. Further work is needed to understand the variation in practice and to better inform international guidelines regarding emergent neuroimaging and treatment.
Background Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. Methods Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Findings Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9–97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0–87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7–19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3–100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3–100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5–1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7–100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1–100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2–98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5–95.5, p = 0.003). Interpretation In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing.
The 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/American Society of Echocardiography/American College of Chest Physicians/Society for Academic Emergency Medicine/Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography/Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance guidelines for the evaluation and diagnosis of acute chest pain make important recommendations that include the recognition of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) as the preferred biomarker, endorsement of 99th percentile upper reference limits to define myocardial injury, and the use of clinical decision pathways, as well as acknowledgment of the uniqueness of women and other patient subsets. Details on how to integrate hs-cTn into clinical practice are less extensively addressed. Clinicians should be aware of some of the analytical aspects related to hs-cTn assays regarding the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation and how they are used clinically, especially for the single sample strategy to rule out acute myocardial infarction. Likewise, it is important for clinicians to understand issues related to the derivation of the 99th percentile upper reference limit; the value of sex-specific 99th percentile upper reference limits; how to use changing concentrations (deltas) to facilitate diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, including the differentiation of acute from chronic myocardial injury; and how to best integrate the use of hs-cTn with clinical decision pathways. With the use of hs-cTn, conditions such as type 2 myocardial infarction become more common, whereas others such as unstable angina become less frequent but still occur. Sections relating to these issues are included.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.