Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: review of neuroimaging findings.

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a group of disorders characterized by segmental narrowing and dilatation of medium-to-large cerebral arteries, clinically presenting with recurrent episodes of sudden-onset thunderclap headaches, with or without focal neurological deficits. Cerebral vasoconstriction is typically reversible, with spontaneous resolution within 3 months. Although the syndrome has generally a benign course, patients with neurological deficits may experience worse outcome. The main imaging finding is segmental constriction of intracranial arteries, which can be associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage and/or ischemic foci. Other possible findings are intracranial hemorrhage, subdural bleeding and cerebral edema. The latter may have a pattern which can resemble that of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, a condition that can overlap with RCVS. New imaging techniques, such as vessel wall imaging and arterial spin labeling, are proving useful in RCVS and are giving new insights into the pathophysiology of this condition. In this paper, we aim to review neuroimaging findings of RCVS.

Clinical usefulness of Edinburgh CT criteria in patients with lobar intracerebral hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the cause of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is relevant to optimize its management. We aimed to assess the applicability and utility of the Edinburgh CT criteria for cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in an unselected cohort of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively applied the Edinburgh criteria to the first available brain CTs of patients hospitalized for a first-ever lobar ICH in the district of L'Aquila from 2011 to 2017. ICH characteristics and outcomes were compared according to the presence of the Edinburgh CT criteria, including associated subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and finger-like projections (FLPs). The outcome of ICH in-hospital mortality was assessed with multivariate logistic regression analysis. We adopted the Edinburgh criteria, age, NIHSS and Glasgow Coma Scale scores, systolic blood pressure, antiplatelet treatment, ICH volume, and intraventricular extension on admission as covariates. RESULTS: Of 178 patients with lobar ICH, 52 (29.2%) had aSAH+FLPs, 60 (33.7%) aSAH only, 1 (0.6%) FLPs, and 65 (36.5%) none. Patients with aSAH+FLPs were older (79.0 ± 9.2 years) than those with only one criterion or none (74.0 ± 15.3 and 72.2 ± 13.8 years, respectively; P = 0.020). Patients with aSAH+FLPs also had more severe ICH at onset, higher in-hospital case-fatality (log rank test P = 0.003) and higher mRS scores at discharge (P < 0.001) as compared to those fulfilling one or none of the Edinburgh criteria. Low Glasgow Coma Scale score was the only factor independently associated to in-hospital case-fatality (odds ratio per point increase 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.91; P = 0.021). DISCUSSION: Our data suggest the applicability of the Edinburgh CT criteria in a hospital setting. The presence of those criteria reflects ICH clinical severity. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the Edinburgh CT criteria might help refining the diagnosis and improving the management of patients with lobar ICH.

The appropriate dosing of erenumab for migraine prevention after multiple preventive treatment failures: a critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was approved for the prevention of episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) at the monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg. We reviewed the available literature to understand if patients with prior preventive treatment failures benefit more from the 140 mg dose than the 70 mg. MAIN BODY: We searched papers indexed in PubMed and conference abstracts published in the last 2 years which assessed the safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with prior preventive treatment failures. We reviewed the results of 3 randomized controlled trials and their subgroup analyses and open-label extensions. The 140 mg monthly dose of erenumab had a numerical advantage over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with prior preventive treatment failures, both in EM and CM (with or without medication overuse) during the double blind phases of the trials and their open-label extensions. The numerical difference between the two doses increased with the increase in the number of prior preventive treatment failures. CONCLUSIONS: The available data suggest that erenumab 140 mg monthly might be preferred over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with EM or CM and prior preventive treatment failures. Further data are needed to assess the long-term efficacy in clinical practice of the two doses of erenumab, while their safety profile is comparable.