OBJECTIVE: Treatment for cluster headache is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. The available preventive treatment is unspecific and based on few and small studies not adhering to modern standards. Therefore, the authors collaborated to discuss acute and preventive treatment in cluster headache, addressing the unmet need of safe and tolerable preventive medication from the perspectives of people with cluster headache and society, headache specialist and cardiologist.
RESULTS: The impact of cluster headache on personal life is substantial. Mean annual direct and indirect costs of cluster headache are more than 11,000 Euros per patient. For acute treatment, the main problems are treatment response, availability, costs and, for triptans, contraindications and the maximum use allowed. Intermediate treatment with steroids and greater occipital nerve blocks are effective but cannot be used continuously. Preventive treatment is sparsely studied and overall limited by relatively low efficacy and side effects. Neurostimulation is a relevant option for treatment-refractory chronic patients. From a cardiologist\'s perspective use of verapamil and triptans may be worrisome and regular follow-up is essential when using verapamil and lithium.
CONCLUSIONS: We find that there is a great and unmet need to pursue novel and targeted preventive modalities to suppress the horrific pain attacks for people with cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review.
METHODS: Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS: For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan).
CONCLUSIONS: This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of changes to the pre-hospital management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) following intervention with a revised Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG). The major CPG revisions were removal of verapamil, addition of adenosine and an emphasis on Valsalva manoeuvre.
METHODS: We undertook a retrospective case study using data collected by paramedics. All adult patients attended by paramedics from the periods 14 February 2012 to 14 September 2012 (old CPG) and 14 February 2013 to 14 September 2013 (revised CPG) were included. Patients were excluded if SVT was not recorded during initial assessment on a hardcopy ECG. Management guided by the old and revised CPGs was compared: reversion effectiveness, elements of therapy associated with reversion effectiveness and adverse events. Logistic regression determined patient factors significantly associated with reversion.
RESULTS: Patients were predominantly women, aged approximately 57 years old and most lived in the Victorian metropolitan region. Vagal manoeuvre use and effectiveness decreased in the post-intervention group. Fewer patients in the post-intervention group (141/420, 33.6%) remained in SVT on arrival at hospital compared with the pre-intervention group (205/403, 50.8%). Initial heart rate >170/min and longer scene time were 2.6 and 1.05 times more likely to result in reversion, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The revised CPG improved pre-hospital SVT reversion success. This expansion of practice has not demonstrated improvements to utilisation or effectiveness of the Valsalva manoeuvre. Adenosine is effective and safe for pre-hospital use.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。