Publicação
Aura status: a not so frequent aura
| Resumo: | Background: Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods: We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results: Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Background: Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods: We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results: Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Conclusion: Both criteria identify a similar population in terms of age, gender, main symptoms, imaging and outcome. Since patients with closely recurring auras might raise the same approach independently of the criteria, the use of more liberal criteria will allow more cases for detailed diagnosis and therapeutic analysis, eventually leading to the identification of subtypes. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Alagoa Joao, Ana |
| Outros Autores: | Goucha, Tomas B.; Martins, Isabel Pavão |
| Assunto: | ICHD-III beta Migraine aura status Headache classification Migraine diagnosis |
| Ano: | 2014 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso restrito |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | Background: Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods: We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results: Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Background: Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods: We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results: Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Conclusion: Both criteria identify a similar population in terms of age, gender, main symptoms, imaging and outcome. Since patients with closely recurring auras might raise the same approach independently of the criteria, the use of more liberal criteria will allow more cases for detailed diagnosis and therapeutic analysis, eventually leading to the identification of subtypes. |
|---|