Etiology and characteristics of non-aneurysmal thunderclap headache presenting to an acute setting.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and causes of non-aneurysmal thunderclap headache (TCH) and compare serious from benign underlying causes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with TCH presenting to a tertiary care academic medical center between 2010 and 2020. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage cases were excluded. Cases were categorized into serious or benign; serious TCH was defined as any condition in which delayed diagnosis and treatment could result in neurological disability or death. Risk factors for serious TCH were analyzed. We adhere to standardized guidelines for reporting observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 932 patients presented with TCH. After exclusion of 393 patients with aneurysmal-type subarachnoid hemorrhage, 539 were included in the analysis. One-half (n = 275, 51.0 %) had a serious cause. Median age was 51 years, 69.0 % were female. Most frequent diagnoses were intracranial hemorrhage (n = 102, 18.9 %), reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (n = 97, 18.0 %), and idiopathic TCH (n = 102, 38.6 %). A multivariable logistic regression model for prediction of serious TCH included age, hypertension, migraines, recurrent TCH, level of consciousness and other clinical exam findings, and achieved an AUROC of 0.732. This score had a sensitivity of 79.9 % (95 % CI 73.5-83.5 %) for the identification of serious TCH. A 0.5-point increase in the risk score was associated with a 73 % increase in the odds of serious TCH (odds ratio 1.73, 95 % CI 1.53-1.95, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study describes the relative frequency of presentation and etiologies among patients with TCH This score can aide clinicians in recognising patients with potentially serious cause of TCH, for whom additional imaging and neurological consultation is necessary.

Frequency of headache in emergency department patients with anaphylaxis: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple anaphylaxis mediators have been demonstrated to provoke migraine-like attacks following intravascular infusion, suggesting that anaphylaxis could cause headache; however, headache is rarely noted in anaphylaxis and is not included among diagnostic criteria. OBJECTIVE: Our study objectives were to estimate the frequency of headache among prospectively enrolled emergency department (ED) patients with anaphylaxis and assess the association of headache with patient and anaphylaxis characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of ED patients aged ≥5 years who met anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria from January 8, 2020 to September 9, 2022 was conducted. The primary outcome of interest was headache frequency among patients who met at least one anaphylaxis criterion. We explored the association of headache with patient characteristics and anaphylaxis characteristics. RESULTS: We included 63 patients with anaphylaxis. In all, 17 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17%-40%) patients reported the presence of a headache. Female patients had more than a nine times increased odds of having headache (odds ratio [OR] 9.3, 95% CI 1.14-77.1, p = 0.016). Presentation with headache was associated with the presence of dyspnea (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.56-19.7, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Headache in anaphylaxis may be more common than previously recognized, especially in females. Larger prospective studies are needed to characterize headache as a marker of neurological involvement in anaphylaxis.

Comparison of clinical note quality between an automated digital intake tool and the standard note in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians. METHODS: Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified. CONCLUSION: Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters.

Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.