Points and Pearls Excerpt
Most Important References
The Ottawa SAH rule has very specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that must be followed closely for appropriate application:
Why to Use
It is challenging to rule out SAH in patients who present with headache and no neurologic deficits. SAH is rare, accounting for approximately 1% of patients presenting to the ED with headache (Vermeulen 1990), but missed diagnoses ave potentially devastating results. A tool that reliably rules out SAH is useful to avoid unnecessary workups.
Lumbar puncture is often performed as the confirmatory test if a noncontrast head CT scan is negative but the clinical suspicion for SAH remains high. Lumbar puncture is painful and carries the risk of bleeding and of headache that may be worse than the original presenting headache.
When to Use
Use the Ottawa SAH rule in patients aged ≥ 15 years who present with headache and are neurologically intact.
In patients who have any positive criteria for the Ottawa SAH rule (ie, SAH cannot be ruled out), workup for SAH typically begins with a noncontrast head CT. Consider lumbar puncture and/or cerebral angiography if clinical suspicion remains. In their 2013 validation study, Perry et al provided insight into the appropriate workup for patients with possible SAH.
Neurology and neurosurgical consultation should be obtained for patients with suspected or confirmed SAH.
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; ED, emergency department; SAH, subarachnoid hemorrhage..
Consider workup for SAH in patients who have any positive criteria; however, given the low specificity of the rule, not every patient who fails the rule will require workup for SAH. In patients for whom all criteria are negative, consider avoiding further SAH-specific workup.
Patients in whom SAH has been ruled out may still have other causes of headache that require workup or intervention. The differential diagnosis should be broad.
The first iteration of what is now known as the Ottawa SAH rule was derived by Perry et al in 2010. The study prospectively enrolled 1999 patients with headache who were from 5 Canadian tertiary care centers; 130 of these patients had confirmed SAH. Sixteen variables were identified as predictive for SAH (13 on history and 3 on physical examination). Recursive partitioning was used to identify combinations of these variables and create the 3 separate decision rules with the highest sensitivity for SAH.
Perry et al (2013) prospectively validated these findings in a study of 2131 patients at 10 sites, using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria for enrollment:
The variables were again run through recursive partitioning and the final Ottawa SAH rule was found to be 100% sensitive for SAH (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.6%-29.5%). Specificity was 15.3% (95% CI, 13.8%-16.9%).
Not all patients in the validation study underwent a full workup with CT scan and lumbar puncture (80% had a CT scan and 45% had lumbar puncture). The patients who were discharged without undergo-ing a CT scan and lumbar puncture were assessed using a follow-up tool that included structured telephone interviews and medical records review.
The authors acknowledged that some patients with small nonaneurysmal SAH may have been missed.
Bellolio et al (2015) also externally validated the Ottawa SAH rule by retrospectively applying it to 454 patients who presented to the ED with headache. Sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 62.9%-100%) but specificity was lower than in the validation by Perry et al (7.6%, 95% CI 5.4%-10.6%), so the authors concluded that the rule’s clinical use may be limited.
According to the hierarchy of evidence for clinical decision rules that was developed by McGinn et al (2000), the Ottawa SAH rule is a level 2 clinical decision rule, with established accuracy in at least 1 large prospective study, but no impact analysis completed as of yet.
Jeffrey J. Perry, MD, MSc
Copyright © MDCalc • Reprinted with permission.
David Zodda, MD, FACEP; Gabrielle Procopio, PharmD, BCPS; Amit Gupta, MD
Mert Erogul, MD; Steven A. Godwin, MD, FACEP
February 1, 2019
February 28, 2022
4 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™, 4 ACEP Category I Credits, 4 AAFP Prescribed Credits, 4 AOA Category 2-A or 2-B Credits. Specialty CME Credits:Included as part of the 4 credits, this CME activity is eligible for 4 Stroke CME and 1 Pharmacology CME credits
Physician CME Information
Date of Original Release: February 1, 2019. Date of most recent review: January 15, 2019. Termination date: February 1, 2022.
Accreditation: EB Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the ACCME.
Credit Designation: EB Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 4 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
ACEP Accreditation: Emergency Medicine Practice is approved by the American College of Emergency Physicians for 48 hours of ACEP Category I credit per annual subscription.
AAFP Accreditation: This Enduring Material activity, Emergency Medicine Practice, has been reviewed and is acceptable for credit by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Term of approval begins 07/01/2018. Term of approval is for one year from this date. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Approved for 4 AAFP Prescribed credits.
AOA Accreditation: Emergency Medicine Practice is eligible for up to 48 American Osteopathic Association Category 2-A or 2-B credit hours per year.
Specialty CME: Included as part of the 4 credits, this CME activity is eligible for 4 Stroke CME and 1 Pharmacology CME credits, subject to your state and institutional approval.
Needs Assessment: The need for this educational activity was determined by a survey of medical staff, including the editorial board of this publication; review of morbidity and mortality data from the CDC, AHA, NCHS, and ACEP; and evaluation of prior activities for emergency physicians.
Target Audience: This enduring material is designed for emergency medicine physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and residents.
Goals: Upon completion of this activity, you should be able to: (1) demonstrate medical decision-making based on the strongest clinical evidence; (2) cost-effectively diagnose and treat the most critical presentations; and (3) describe the most common medicolegal pitfalls for each topic covered.
Discussion of Investigational Information: As part of the journal, faculty may be presenting investigational information about pharmaceutical products that is outside Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling. Information presented as part of this activity is intended solely as continuing medical education and is not intended to promote off-label use of any pharmaceutical product.
Faculty Disclosures: It is the policy of EB Medicine to ensure objectivity, balance, independence, transparency, and scientific rigor in all CME-sponsored educational activities. All faculty participating in the planning or implementation of a sponsored activity are expected to disclose to the audience any relevant financial relationships and to assist in resolving any conflict of interest that may arise from the relationship. In compliance with all ACCME Essentials, Standards, and Guidelines, all faculty for this CME activity were asked to complete a full disclosure statement. The information received is as follows: Dr. Zodda, Dr. Procopio, Dr. Gupta, Dr. Erogul, Dr. Godwin, Dr. Mishler, Dr. Toscano, and their related parties report no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial product(s) discussed in this educational presentation. Dr. Jagoda made the following disclosures: Consultant, Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Consultant, Pfizer Inc; Consultant, Banyan Biomarkers Inc.
Commercial Support: This issue of Emergency Medicine Practice did not receive any commercial support.
Earning Credit: Two Convenient Methods: (1) Go online to www.ebmedicine.net/CME and click on the title of the article. (2) Mail or fax the CME Answer And Evaluation Form (included with your June and December issues) to EB Medicine.
Hardware/Software Requirements: You will need a Macintosh or PC to access the online archived articles and CME testing.
Additional Policies: For additional policies, including our statement of conflict of interest, source of funding, statement of informed consent, and statement of human and animal rights, visit www.ebmedicine.net/policies