 |
Cefalea post punción dural. Revisión y sugerencia de un nuevo manejo
Post Dural Puncture Headache-Review and Suggested New Treatment
Sharon L. Kracoff, Vladimir Kotlovker2
Open Journal of Anesthesiology, 2016, 6, 148-163
Abstract
Objectives: After reading this article, readers should be able to recognize Post Dural Puncture Headache, understand its mechanism and diagnostic criteria, evaluate the different treatment options available, and be familiar with a novel treatment option. Background: Post-dural puncture headache is the most common serious complication resulting from lumbar puncture and epidural or spinal anesthetics. The syndrome is characterized by severe headache that occurs within 48 hours following the puncture, located in the frontal and/or occipital region, worsened in the upright position and refractory to routine analgesia. The syndrome incidence was reported to be approximately 1% with typical obstetric anesthesiology practice which reflects more than 20,000 cases per 2014 in the US. Two possible mechanisms are hypothesized as responsible for this syndrome; cerebrospinal fluid leakage and pneumocephalus. Multiple methods of treatment have been applied with wide-ranging results. Design or Methods: Review article with introduction of a novel treatment option. Results: We postulate that Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy can be used to treat postdural puncture headache. The rationale for treatment is dual: enhancement of fibroblast proliferation at the site of dural puncture to facilitate faster closure of the tear and compression of air bubbles in case of pneumocephalus according to Boyle's law. We also claim that hyperbaric oxygen therapy should be considered a prophylactic treatment, if a dural tear is suspected. Keywords Post Dural Puncture Headache, Lumbar Puncture, Epidural Anesthesia, Spinal Anesthesia, Headache, Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
|
Relación de IMC con la incidencia de CPPD en parturientas
The Relationship of Body Mass Index with the Incidence of Postdural Puncture Headache in Parturients.
Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):451-6. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000802.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unintentional dural puncture is a known risk after epidural or combined spinal-epidural procedures, occurring in approximately 1% of labor epidural catheters placed in parturients with normal body habitus but may be as high as 4% in morbidly obese parturients. Anecdotal experience and limited publications suggest that an inverse relationship between body mass index (BMI) and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) may exist. We hypothesized that parturients with increased BMI have a lower incidence of PDPH than those with a lower BMI after unintentional dural puncture. METHODS: After IRB approval, we performed a retrospective cohort study by medical record review. Case logs from our institution were searched for patients with documented unintentional dural puncture during attempted neuraxial analgesia between January 1, 2004, and December 13, 2013. The primary outcome was the incidence of PDPH. The association between BMI and PDPH was assessed using binary logistic regression, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds and confidence intervals (CIs) for a random pair of BMI values from a PDPH subject compared with a non-PDPH subject were calculated from the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve. Classification tree analysis was used to determine the BMI cutoff value for the risk of developing a PDPH. The presence or absence of second-stage labor pushing and placement of an intrathecal catheter after unintentional dural puncture were compared in parturients with and without PDPH using the Fisher exact test. BMI groups were dichotomized at the cutoff value (low and high BMI groups). We compared the incidence of a PDPH between high and low BMI groups using the Fisher exact test after controlling for pushing during labor and placement of an intrathecal catheter at the time of unintentional dural puncture. Secondary analysis evaluated the highest reported numeric rating of pain scores for headache and the need for an epidural blood patch between BMI groups. RESULTS: Unintentional dural puncture was identified in 518 (0.53%) patients (95% CI, 0.48%-0.58%). The overall incidence of PDPH after unintentional dural puncture was 51% (95% CI, 46%-55%). The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds for a random pair of BMI values from a PDPH subject compared with a non-PDPH subject was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.90, P = 0.001). The odds ratio for developing a PDPH in women who pushed during delivery was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.2-3.9, P = 0.001) compared with women who did not push. Classification tree analysis identified a BMI cutoff value of 31.5 kg/m for prediction of a PDPH. The incidence of PDPH in parturients with a BMI ≥31.5 kg/m (39%) was lower than in parturients with a BMI <31.5 kg/m (56%; difference -17%; 95% CI, -7% to -26%, P = 0.0004). The odds ratio for a PDPH in the high BMI compared with the low BMI group was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.92, P = 0.04) in parturients who pushed during labor and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.97, P = 0. 04) in parturients who did not push. After the unintentional dural puncture, 112 (22%) parturients had an intrathecal catheter placed. The incidence of PDPH in parturients with an intrathecal catheter was 59% (95% CI, 49%-68%) compared with 48% (95% CI, 43%-54%) in women with an epidural catheter (P = 0.06). Median (interquartile range) headache severity (0-10 verbal rating scale) was 8 (6-9) and did not differ between parturients in the high versus low BMI groups (P = 0.61). The rate of epidural blood patch administration for PDPH treatment was similar in BMI groups (difference -12%; 95% CI, 4 to -27, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The findings are consistent with previous reports of decreased PDPH incidence after unintentional dural puncture in parturients with an increased BMI, even after controlling for pushing during labor. Severity of headache and need for epidural blood patch treatment were similar in low and high BMI groups.
|
Medicamentos para prevenir CPPD
Drug therapy for preventing post-dural puncture headache.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-dural (post-lumbar or post-spinal) puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most common complications of diagnostic, therapeutic or inadvertent lumbar punctures. Many drug options have been used to prevent headache in clinical practice and have also been tested in some clinical studies, but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of drugs for preventing PDPH in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (from 1950 to May 2012), EMBASE (from 1980 to May 2012) and CINAHL (from 1982 to June 2012). There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of any drug used for preventing PDPH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR and MD. We did not undertake meta-analysis because participants' characteristics or assessed doses of drugs were too different in the included studies. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (1611 participants) in this review with a majority of women (72%), mostly parturients (women in labour) (913), after a lumbar puncture for regional anaesthesia. Drugs assessed were epidural and spinal morphine, spinal fentanyl, oral caffeine, rectal indomethacin, intravenous cosyntropin, intravenous aminophylline and intravenous dexamethasone.All the included RCTs reported data on the primary outcome, i.e. the number of participants affected by PDPH of any severity after a lumbar puncture. Epidural morphine and intravenous cosyntropin reduced the number of participants affected by PDPH of any severity after a lumbar puncture when compared to placebo. Also, intravenous aminophylline reduced the number of participants affected by PDPH of any severity after a lumbar puncture when compared to no intervention, while intravenous dexamethasone increased it. Spinal morphine increased the number of participants affected by pruritus when compared to placebo, and epidural morphine increased the number of participants affected by nausea and vomiting when compared to placebo. Oral caffeine increased the number of participants affected by insomnia when compared to placebo.The remainder of the interventions analysed did not show any relevant effect for any of the outcomes.None of the included RCTs reported the number of days that patients stayed in hospital. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Morphine and cosyntropin have shown effectiveness for reducing the number of participants affected by PDPH of any severity after a lumbar puncture, when compared to placebo, especially in patients with high risk of PDPH, such as obstetric patients who have had an inadvertent dural puncture. Aminophylline also reduced the number of participants affected by PDPH of any severity after a lumbar puncture when compared to no intervention in patients undergoing elective caesarean section. Dexamethasone increased the risk of PDPH, after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section, when compared to placebo. Morphine also increased the number of participants affected by adverse events (pruritus and nausea and vomiting)There is a lack of conclusive evidence for the other drugs assessed (fentanyl, caffeine, indomethacin and dexamethasone).These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, owing to the lack of information, to allow correct appraisal of risk of bias and the small sample sizes of studies.
|
Momento de las intervenciones neuraxiales para manejar dolor después del parche hemático para CPPD.
Timing of neuraxial pain interventions following blood patch for post dural puncture headache.
Abstract
Post dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of interventional neuraxial procedures. Larger needle gauge, younger patients, low body mass index, women (especially pregnant women), and "traumatic" needle types are all associated with a higher incidence of PDPH. Currently, an epidural blood patch is the gold-standard treatment for this complication. However, despite the high PDPH cure rate through the use of this therapy, little is known about the physiology behind the success of the epidural blood patch, specifically, the time course of patch formation within the epidural space or how long it takes for the blood patch volume to be resorbed by the body. Of the many unanswered and debated topics related to PDPH and epidural blood patches, one additional specific question that may alter clinical management is when it is safe for patients who have experienced a disruption of the thecal space and have undergone this procedure to have a subsequent epidural or spinal procedure, such as a neuraxial anesthetic (i.e. a spinal anesthetic for an elective outpatient procedure) or an interventional pain procedure for chronic pain management. This question becomes more unclear if the new procedure includes a steroid medication. As an example, an older patient presents with a history of lumbar disc disease and during lumbar epidural steroid injection, an inadvertent wet tap occurs leading to PDPH. Following management with fluids, caffeine, medications, and a successful epidural blood patch, it remains unclear as to when would be the best time frame to consider a second lumbar epidural steroid injection. We identified the 3 main risk factors of subsequent interventional neuraxial procedures as (1) disruption of the epidural blood patch and ongoing reparative processes, (2) epidural procedure failure, and (3) infection. We looked at the literature, and summarized the existing literature in order to enable health care professionals to understand the time course of dural repair as well as the risks of subsequent neuraxial procedures after epidural blood patches. This review poses the question using an evidence based review to discuss the appropriate time course to proceed.
|
CPPD, un viejo problema y nuevos conceptos. Revisión de artículos sobre factores predisponentes
Post spinal puncture headache, an old problem and new concepts: review of articles about predisposing factors.
Abstract
Post spinal puncture headache (PSPH) is a well known complication of spinal anesthesia. It occurs after spinal anesthesia induction due to dural and arachnoid puncture and has a significant effect on the patient's postoperative well being. This manuscript is based on an observational study that runs on Babol University of Medical Sciences and review of literatures about current concepts about the incidence, risk factors and predisposing factors of post spinal puncture headache. The overall incidence of post-dural puncture headache after intentional dural puncture varies form 0.1-36%, while it is about 3.1% by atraumatic spinal needle 25G Whitacre. 25G Quincke needle with a medium bevel cutting is popular with widespread use and the incidence of PSPH is about 25%, but its incidence obtained 17.3% by spinal needle 25G Quincke in our observation. The association of predisposing factors like female, young age, pregnancy, low body mass index, multiple dural puncture, inexpert operators and past medical history of chronic headache, expose the patient to PSPH. The identification of factors that predict the likelihood of PSPH is important so that measures can be taken to minimize this painful complication resulting from spinal anesthesia.
KEYWORDS: Headache; Post spinal puncture headache (PSPH); Risk factors; Spinal anesthesia; Treatment
|
|
|
|
| |
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario