65-year-old male patient with left sided headache and orbital pain of 2-3 months duration

Despite advancement of neurotechnology and neuroimaging, detailed history and examination remain the most important tools for diagnosis of unilateral headache and orbital pain. Headache is a common symptom among all age groups with a considerable array of differential diagnoses. Tolosa Hunt syndrome is a rare cause of unilateral headache and orbital pain. High clinical suspicion basedon clinical presentation, thorough history and physical examination is crucial for diagnosis

Endovascular versus surgical treatment for acute limb ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BackgroundA number of small studies have suggested that outcomes following endovascular (ENDO) therapy are comparable to those following surgical (SURG) revascularization for patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to compare mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia across both revascularization strategies.MethodsA comprehensive database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases from January 1990 through January 2016 was performed to identify studies of ENDO versus SURG for ALI. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted the data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials was assessed using the I2 statistics. The primary endpoints were mortality and limb amputation at 1 month, 6 and 12 months. Secondary endpoint was recurrent ischemia at one year.ResultsA total of 1,773 patients were included from six studies (five randomized prospective and one observational retrospective) comparing ENDO and SURG in the setting of ALI. The mean age was 67 years and 65% of patients were male. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups at 1 month [risk ratio (RR) for ENDO vs. SURG is 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33 to 1.50], 6 months (RR 1.12; CI, 0.78 to 1.61) or 12 months (RR 0.74; CI, 0.29 to 1.85). Similarly, there was no significant difference in amputation rates between ENDO and SURG at 1 month (RR 0.75; CI, 0.40 to 1.42), 6 months (RR 0.87; CI, 0.52 to 1.48) or 12 months (RR 0.81; CI, 0.55 to 1.18). When looking into secondary outcomes, recurrent ischemia was not different between the two groups (RR 1.12; CI, 0.75 to 1.67).ConclusionsIn patients presenting with ALI (<2 weeks of duration), ENDO and SURG approaches have similar rates of short-term and 12 month mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review

To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The results of a recent randomized controlled trial reported unfavorable effects of routine measurement of FFR, thereby questioning its validity in improving clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January, 2000 through December, 2016 and studies comparing FFR and ANGIO guided PCI were included. Clinical endpoints assessed during hospitalization and at follow-up (>9 months) included: myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and all-cause mortality. Additional endpoints included number of PCIs performed, procedure cost, procedure time, contrast volume, and fluoroscopy time. A total of 51,350 patients (age 65 years, 73% male) were included from 11 studies. The use of FFR was associated with significantly lower likelihood of MI during hospitalization (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.75, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.70, P = 0.00001). Similarly, FFR-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital MACE (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.70, P = 0.0001) and follow-up MACE (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.86, P = 0.004). In-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.97, P = 0.04), but not at follow-up (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.37, P = 0.46). There was no difference of in-hospital (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.09, P = 0.09) or follow-up all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59 to 1.20, P = 0.34). FFR-PCI was associated with significantly less PCI (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15, P = 0.00001) with lower procedure cost (Mean Difference -4.27, 95% CI: -6.61 to -1.92, P = 0.0004). However, no difference in procedure time (Mean Difference 0.79, 95% CI: -2.41 to 3.99, P = 0.63), contrast use (Mean Difference -8.28, 95% CI: -24.25 to 7.68, P = 0.31) or fluoroscopy time (Mean Difference 0.38, 95% CI: -2.54 to 3.31, P = 0.80) was observed. FFR-PCI as compared to ANGIO-PCI is associated with lower in-hospital and follow-up MI and MACE rates. Although, in-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group, this benefit was not present after 9 months. FFR-PCI group was also associated with less PCI and lower procedure costs with no effect on procedure time, contrast volume or fluoroscopy time