INTRODUCTIONMany patients present to the Emergency Department (ED) complaining of headache and a significant proportion of these visits would result in hospital admissions. This study analyses the demographics, presentation, work-up, reasons for admission, diagnoses and outcomes of patients admitted with the chief complaint of headache--to identify possible ways of reducing such admissions.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective analysis was done of the electronic medical records/discharge summaries of all adult patients admitted during a 1-year period from January to December 2006 with the diagnosis of primary headaches or secondary headaches not related to trauma, intracranial infection, inflammation, mass lesion, raised intracranial pressure or a serious systemic illness from the ED of the National University Hospital of Singapore.

RESULTSOne thousand two hundred and seventy-six patients presented to the adult ED with primary headaches or secondary headaches not related to serious conditions in 2006. This represented 2% of the ED attendances in the period. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were admitted for various reasons--diagnostic uncertainty: 110 (49%), pain control: 73 (33%), social/patient request: 60 (27%) and others: 4 (2%). Sixty-six per cent of the patients had either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) head imaging. Eighteen patients (8%) were eventually diagnosed with a "potentially serious" diagnosis (intracranial haemorrhage, brain metastasis, stroke, meningitis, cerebral inflammation, cysticercosis, cervical osteomyelitis, hydrocephalus, seizure and malignant hypertension).

CONCLUSIONSpecific strategies addressing the various reasons for admission including physician training, use of evaluation protocols, imaging to exclude secondary pathology, a longer duration of treatment and evaluation in the ED, effective pain control and patient education may help reduce headache admissions.

Emergency Service, Hospital ; Headache ; diagnosis ; drug therapy ; epidemiology ; physiopathology ; Humans ; Medical Audit ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Patient Admission ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore ; epidemiology

INTRODUCTIONEarly use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may improve survival outcomes. Current evidence for such devices uses outcomes from an intention-to-treat (ITT) perspective. We aimed to determine whether early use of mechanical CPR using a LUCAS 2 device results in better outcomes.

METHODSA prospective, randomised, multicentre study was conducted over one year with LUCAS 2 devices in 14 ambulances and manual CPR in 32 ambulances to manage OHCA. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were survival at 24 hours, discharge from hospital and 30 days.

RESULTSOf the 1,274 patients recruited, 1,191 were eligible for analysis. 889 had manual CPR and 302 had LUCAS CPR. From an ITT perspective, outcomes for manual and LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 29.2% and 31.1% (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.45; p = 0.537); 24-hour survival 11.2% and 13.2% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.78; p = 0.352); survival to discharge 3.6% and 4.3% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.62-2.33; p = 0.579); and 30-day survival 3.0% and 4.0% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66-2.64; p = 0.430), respectively. By as-treated analysis, outcomes for manual, early LUCAS and late LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 28.0%, 36.9% and 24.5%; 24-hour survival 10.6%, 15.5% and 8.2%; survival to discharge 2.9%, 5.8% and 2.0%; and 30-day survival 2.4%, 5.8% and 0.0%, respectively. Adjusted OR for survival with early LUCAS vs. manual CPR was 1.47 after adjustment for other variables (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONThis study showed a survival benefit with LUCAS CPR as compared to manual CPR only, when the device was applied early on-site.