Determination of a Testing Threshold for Lumbar Puncture in the Diagnosis of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage after a Negative Head Computed Tomography: A Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the testing threshold for lumbar puncture (LP) in the evaluation of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) after a negative head computed tomography (CT). As a secondary aim we sought to identify clinical variables that have the greatest impact on this threshold. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the testing threshold for patients with normal neurologic findings, being evaluated for SAH, after a negative CT of the head. The testing threshold was calculated as the pretest probability of disease where the two strategies (LP or no LP) are balanced in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. RESULTS: For the base-case scenario the testing threshold for performing an LP after negative head CT was 4.3%. Results for the two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the test threshold ranged from 1.9% to 15.6%, dominated by the uncertainty in the probability of death from initial missed SAH. In the PSA the mean testing threshold was 4.3% (95% confidence interval = 1.4% to 9.3%). Other significant variables in the model included probability of aneurysmal versus nonaneurysmal SAH after negative head CT, probability of long-term morbidity from initial missed SAH, and probability of renal failure from contrast-induced nephropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Our decision analysis results suggest a testing threshold for LP after negative CT to be approximately 4.3%, with a range of 1.4% to 9.3% on robust PSA. In light of these data, and considering the low probability of aneurysmal SAH after a negative CT, classical teaching and current guidelines addressing testing for SAH should be revisited.

Practical guide to the management of acute and chronic pain in the presence of drug tolerance for the healthcare practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Drug tolerance has been on the rise in recent years worldwide, and consequently, pain management in our population has become challenging. METHODS: Discussed in this review are commonly abused drugs and considerations for treating acute and chronic pain states in patients with substance disorders. RESULTS: After marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco, the most widely abused substances are oxycodone (Oxycontin), diazepam (Valium), and methylphenidate (Ritalin). Urine testing can detect metabolites of drugs used by patients and is useful for assessing drug abuse, medication diversion, and drug interactions. The comprehensive treatment of pain in a patient with addictive disorder or tolerance must address 3 issues: the patient's addiction, any associated psychiatric conditions, and the patient's pain. Eliciting a detailed history of drug abuse-illicit drugs as well as prescription drugs-and ascertaining if the patient is currently enrolled in a methadone maintenance program for the treatment of drug addiction is vital. CONCLUSION: Medical observation, supportive care, multidisciplinary pain management, and timely interventions as necessary are the keys to safe outcomes in these patients.