Persistent post-traumatic headache: A migrainous loop or not? The clinical evidence

Background: Headache is a common complication of traumatic brain injury. The International Headache Society defines post-traumatic headache as a secondary headache attributed to trauma or injury to the head that develops within seven days following trauma. Acute post-traumatic headache resolves after 3 months, but persistent post-traumatic headache usually lasts much longer and accounts for 4% of all secondary headache disorders. Main body: The clinical features of post-traumatic headache after traumatic brain injury resemble various types of primary headaches and the most frequent are migraine-like or tension-type-like phenotypes. The neuroimaging studies that have compared persistent post-traumatic headache and migraine found different structural and functional brain changes, although migraine and post-traumatic headache may be clinically similar. Therapy of various clinical phenotypes of post-traumatic headache almost entirely mirrors the therapy of the corresponding primary headache and are currently based on expert opinion rather than scientific evidence. Pharmacologic therapies include both abortive and prophylactic agents with prophylaxis targeting comorbidities, especially impaired sleep and post-traumatic disorder. There are also effective options for non-pharmacologic therapy of post-traumatic headache, including cognitive-behavioral approaches, onabotulinum toxin injections, life-style considerations, etc. Conclusion: Notwithstanding some phenotypic similarities, persistent post-traumatic headache after traumatic brain injury, is considered a separate phenomenon from migraine but available data is inconclusive. High-quality studies are further required to investigate the pathophysiological mechanisms of this secondary headache, in order to identify new targets for treatment and to prevent disability

Added value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and cardiac CTA in suspected transcatheter aortic valve endocarditis

Backgrounds: Transcatheter-implanted aortic valve infective endocarditis (TAVI-IE) is difficult to diagnose when relying on the Duke Criteria. Our aim was to assess the additional diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission/computed tomography (PET/CT) and cardiac computed tomog

Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI

Objectives. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods. In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p=0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p=0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p=0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p=0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p=0.09). Conclusions. In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome

Incidence and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used as an alternative to conventional surgical valve replacement. Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a rare but feared complication after TAVR, with reported first-year incidences varying from 0.57 to 3.1%. This study was performed to gain insight into the incidence and outcome of PVE after TAVR in the Netherlands. Methods A multicentre retrospective registry study was performed. All patients who underwent TAVR in the period 2010-2017 were screened for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in the insurance database and checked for the presence of PVE before analysis of general characteristics, PVE parameters and outcome. Results A total of 3968 patients who underwent TAVR were screened for PVE. During a median follow-up of 33.5 months (interquartile range (IQR) 22.8-45.8), 16 patients suffered from PVE (0.4%), with a median time to onset of 177 days (IQR 67.8-721.3). First-year incidence was 0.24%, and the overall incidence rate was 0.14 events per 1000 person-years. Overall mortality during follow-up in our study was 31%, of which 25% occurred in hospital. All patients were treated conservatively with intravenous antibiotics alone, and none underwent a re-intervention. Other complications of PVE occurred in 5 patients (31%) and included aortic abscess (2), decompensated heart failure (2) and cerebral embolisation (1). Conclusion PVE in patients receiving TAVR is a relatively rare complication and has a high mortality rate

Clinical presentation, disease course, and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease: a cohort study across 18 countries

Aims Patients with cardiac disease are considered high risk for poor outcomes following hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in associations between various heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality.Methods and results We used data from the CAPACITY-COVID registry and LEOSS study. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to assess the association between different types of pre-existing heart disease and in-hospital mortality. A total of 16 511 patients with COVID-19 were included (21.1% aged 66-75 years; 40.2% female) and 31.5% had a history of heart disease. Patients with heart disease were older, predominantly male, and often had other comorbid conditions when compared with those without. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease (29.7%; n= 1545 vs. 15.9%; n= 1797). However, following multivariable adjustment, this difference was not significant [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.15; P = 0.12 (corrected for multiple testing)]. Associations with in-hospital mortality by heart disease subtypes differed considerably, with the strongest association for heart failure (aRR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30; P <0.018) particularly for severe (New York Heart Association class III/IV) heart failure (aRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; P < 0.018). None of the other heart disease subtypes, including ischaemic heart disease, remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Serious cardiac complications were diagnosed in <1% of patients.Conclusion Considerable heterogeneity exists in the strength of association between heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Of all patients with heart disease, those with heart failure are at greatest risk of death when hospitalized with COVID-19. Serious cardiac complications are rare during hospitalization.[GRAPHICS]

A Dutch treat:randomized controlled experimentation and the case of heroin-maintenance in the Netherlands

In 1995, the Dutch Minister of Health proposed that a randomized clinical trial (RCT) with heroin-maintenance for severe abusers be conducted. It took nearly four years of lengthy debates before the Dutch Parliament consented to the plan. Apart from the idea of prescribing heroin, the minister and her scientific advisers had to defend the quite high material and non-material costs that would arise from employing the randomized controlled design. They argued that the RCT represented the truly scientific approach and was the royal way to unambiguous results. In the present article, I question this common dual justification of RCTs. First, I situate the historical origins and the basic assumptions of the ideal experiment in 20th-century economic liberalism. Secondly, using the Dutch heroin experiment as an example, I discuss human-science experimentation as an attempt to create reality rather than merely record it. Finally, I discuss some surprising responses by heroin users. These responses display the assumptions of RCTs discussed in the historical section, and underline the importance of the culture of heroin use. In the epilogue, 1 suggest that cultural aspects of heroin consumption can best be studied by thorough ethnographic research