IMAGING RESULTS IN A CONSECUTIVE SERIES OF 530 NEW PATIENTS IN THE BIRMINGHAM HEADACHE SERVICE NEUROLOGY JOURNAL CLUBKSHITIJA KARI, MDPGY-III
INTRODUCTIONWhich patients with headache disorders should undergo neuroimaging?UK & USA guidelines (National Institute for Health, American Academy of Neurology) suggest selective policy for imaging as prevalence of significant findings is lowHigh referral rate leads to increased discovery of incidental findings on imagingHowever, clinicians continue to refer such patients for imaging for reassurance and patient satisfaction
STUDY  DESIGNSingle center, prospective observational study over a period of 5 yearsBirmingham Headache ServiceOutpatient consultation service3 consultants
1 diagnostic headache nurse specialist
Imaging performed in the same hospital and reported by general radiologists.METHODSPatients referred to outpatient consultation service.The nurse takes a headache and general medical history and performs a neurological exam.Diagnosis based on ICHD-2 classification (International Classification of Headache Disorders).50% of new patients discussed with consultants regarding imaging.Guidance for general practitioners on imaging in headache (Imaging patients with suspected brain tumor: guidance for primary care. Kernick DP, Br J Gen Pract 2008).
METHODSRoutine imaging ‘orange/yellow flags’:recent headache, change in character
no diagnostic pattern, wakes from sleep
Precipitated by coughing, straining, etc.
hemiplegic migraine, cluster headacheUrgent imaging ‘red flags’:raised intra cranial pressure
focal neurological signs
epilepsy
cognitive disturbance
recent diagnosis of cancerMETHODSSignificant abnormalities: 1º or 2º brain tumorChiari abnormalityInsignificant abnormalities: Arachnoid cystcerebrovascular diseasewhite matter abnormalitiesNormal findings.
RESULTSAug 2004 – July 2009, 3655 new patients seen
69% female, mean age 42yrs
56% white, 34% Asian and 11% Afro-Caribbean
Total of 530 of the 3655 patients were referred for imaging
Differences in proportion of patients imaged by the 3 consultants
RESULTS

Kari final

  • 1.
    IMAGING RESULTS INA CONSECUTIVE SERIES OF 530 NEW PATIENTS IN THE BIRMINGHAM HEADACHE SERVICE NEUROLOGY JOURNAL CLUBKSHITIJA KARI, MDPGY-III
  • 2.
    INTRODUCTIONWhich patients withheadache disorders should undergo neuroimaging?UK & USA guidelines (National Institute for Health, American Academy of Neurology) suggest selective policy for imaging as prevalence of significant findings is lowHigh referral rate leads to increased discovery of incidental findings on imagingHowever, clinicians continue to refer such patients for imaging for reassurance and patient satisfaction
  • 3.
    STUDY DESIGNSinglecenter, prospective observational study over a period of 5 yearsBirmingham Headache ServiceOutpatient consultation service3 consultants
  • 4.
    1 diagnostic headachenurse specialist
  • 5.
    Imaging performed inthe same hospital and reported by general radiologists.METHODSPatients referred to outpatient consultation service.The nurse takes a headache and general medical history and performs a neurological exam.Diagnosis based on ICHD-2 classification (International Classification of Headache Disorders).50% of new patients discussed with consultants regarding imaging.Guidance for general practitioners on imaging in headache (Imaging patients with suspected brain tumor: guidance for primary care. Kernick DP, Br J Gen Pract 2008).
  • 6.
    METHODSRoutine imaging ‘orange/yellowflags’:recent headache, change in character
  • 7.
    no diagnostic pattern,wakes from sleep
  • 8.
  • 9.
    hemiplegic migraine, clusterheadacheUrgent imaging ‘red flags’:raised intra cranial pressure
  • 10.
  • 11.
  • 12.
  • 13.
    recent diagnosis ofcancerMETHODSSignificant abnormalities: 1º or 2º brain tumorChiari abnormalityInsignificant abnormalities: Arachnoid cystcerebrovascular diseasewhite matter abnormalitiesNormal findings.
  • 14.
    RESULTSAug 2004 –July 2009, 3655 new patients seen
  • 15.
  • 16.
    56% white, 34%Asian and 11% Afro-Caribbean
  • 17.
    Total of 530of the 3655 patients were referred for imaging
  • 18.
    Differences in proportionof patients imaged by the 3 consultants
  • 20.