[Risk factors and treatment of post-dural puncture headache-an analysis of the German patients of the international EPIMAP study].

Sarah-Katharina Kroegel, Christian von Heymann, Schyns van den Berg, K Becke, P Kranke, Heidrun Lewald, S Müller, E Muggleton, C Neumann, H Ohnesorge, S Piper, Lutz Kaufner
{"title":"[Risk factors and treatment of post-dural puncture headache-an analysis of the German patients of the international EPIMAP study].","authors":"Sarah-Katharina Kroegel, Christian von Heymann, Schyns van den Berg, K Becke, P Kranke, Heidrun Lewald, S Müller, E Muggleton, C Neumann, H Ohnesorge, S Piper, Lutz Kaufner","doi":"10.1007/s00101-025-01540-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accidental dural puncture (ADP) is a rare but serious complication that can lead to post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), a condition known to significantly impair the well-being of affected women.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study examines the patient characteristics, symptoms, management and outcomes of women with PDPH after ADP and focuses on differences between conservative management and epidural blood patch (EBP).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The data of nine German study sites of the European prospective, multicenter cohort EPIMAP (European Practice in the Management of Accidental Dural Puncture in Obstetrics) trial were analyzed. Only descriptive analyses were performed due to the small sample size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 and 73 patients were included in Germany. Of the 73 patients (76.7%), 56 received an EBP and 17 were treated conservatively (23.3%). In the conservative treatment group, the median numeric rating score of pain (NRS) plus interquartile range (IQR) during the hospital stay was 2 (1; 3) at rest and 7 (5; 8) while sitting or standing. Upon discharge, the NRS had decreased to 0 (0; 1) at rest and 2 (1; 4) while sitting or standing. In the EBP group NRS was 3 (1; 7) at rest and 8.5 (7; 10) while sitting or standing 6-12 h before the intervention. Furthermore, 24 h after the EBP, NRS was 0 (0; 2) at rest and 1 (0; 2) while sitting or standing. A total of 15 women were readmitted to the hospital for recurrent PDPH after EBP (26.8%). A second EBP was administered to 9 patients (60%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The EBP is an effective treatment option for post-puncture dural headache. The choice between the EBP and a conservative treatment seems to be influenced by the intensity of the PDPH. These results underline the importance of an individual treatment approach in patients with PDPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":72805,"journal":{"name":"Die Anaesthesiologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Die Anaesthesiologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-025-01540-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accidental dural puncture (ADP) is a rare but serious complication that can lead to post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), a condition known to significantly impair the well-being of affected women.

Objectives: The present study examines the patient characteristics, symptoms, management and outcomes of women with PDPH after ADP and focuses on differences between conservative management and epidural blood patch (EBP).

Materials and methods: The data of nine German study sites of the European prospective, multicenter cohort EPIMAP (European Practice in the Management of Accidental Dural Puncture in Obstetrics) trial were analyzed. Only descriptive analyses were performed due to the small sample size.

Results: Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 and 73 patients were included in Germany. Of the 73 patients (76.7%), 56 received an EBP and 17 were treated conservatively (23.3%). In the conservative treatment group, the median numeric rating score of pain (NRS) plus interquartile range (IQR) during the hospital stay was 2 (1; 3) at rest and 7 (5; 8) while sitting or standing. Upon discharge, the NRS had decreased to 0 (0; 1) at rest and 2 (1; 4) while sitting or standing. In the EBP group NRS was 3 (1; 7) at rest and 8.5 (7; 10) while sitting or standing 6-12 h before the intervention. Furthermore, 24 h after the EBP, NRS was 0 (0; 2) at rest and 1 (0; 2) while sitting or standing. A total of 15 women were readmitted to the hospital for recurrent PDPH after EBP (26.8%). A second EBP was administered to 9 patients (60%).

Conclusion: The EBP is an effective treatment option for post-puncture dural headache. The choice between the EBP and a conservative treatment seems to be influenced by the intensity of the PDPH. These results underline the importance of an individual treatment approach in patients with PDPH.

【硬脑膜穿刺后头痛的危险因素及治疗——国际EPIMAP研究中德国患者的分析】。
背景:意外硬脑膜穿刺(ADP)是一种罕见但严重的并发症,可导致硬脑膜穿刺后头痛(PDPH),这种情况已知会严重损害受影响妇女的健康。目的:本研究探讨了ADP后女性PDPH的患者特征、症状、治疗和结局,并重点探讨了保守治疗与硬膜外补血(EBP)的差异。材料和方法:对欧洲前瞻性、多中心队列EPIMAP (European Practice in Management of Accidental硬膜穿刺在产科中的管理)试验的9个德国研究点的数据进行分析。由于样本量小,仅进行描述性分析。结果:数据收集于2016年至2018年,在德国纳入73例患者。73例患者(76.7%)中,56例接受EBP治疗,17例接受保守治疗(23.3%)。保守治疗组住院期间疼痛数值评分(NRS)加四分位差(IQR)的中位数为2 (1;3)休息;7 (5);8)坐着或站着。出院时,NRS降至0 (0;1)休息;2 (1;4)坐着或站着。EBP组NRS为3 (1;7)在休息和8.5 (7;10)在干预前坐或站6-12 h。EBP后24 h, NRS为0 (0;2)静止,1 (0;2)坐着或站着时。共有15名妇女因EBP术后复发性PDPH再次入院(26.8%)。第二次EBP治疗9例(60%)。结论:EBP是治疗硬膜穿刺后头痛的有效方法。在EBP和保守治疗之间的选择似乎受到PDPH强度的影响。这些结果强调了个体化治疗方法对PDPH患者的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信