Abstract
Background The investigation of suspected subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) presents a diagnostic dilemma. The limited sensitivity of a negative CT brain scan has historically mandated hospital admission and a lumbar puncture to look for evidence of blood in the cerebrospinal fluid. However, emerging evidence has suggested the sensitivity of clinical decision rules and modern CT imaging protocols within early onset of symptoms, may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
Methods A prospective, multi-centre, observational study of consecutive adult patients with acute severe non-traumatic headache presenting to emergency departments. We plan to recruit 9000 patients from over a hundred sites across the UK. The primary outcome is adjudicated SAH as defined by neuroimaging or cerebrospinal fluid findings consistent with the diagnosis.
Data will be collected on clinical history, examination findings, phlebotomy and imaging results. All participants will be followed for 28-days to identify SAH and other clinically relevant outcomes using case note review, and later Hospital Episode Statistics. A proportionate opt-out model of consent will be used to maximise patient recruitment and study generalisability.
Discussion Whilst there is increasing evidence that early neuroimaging strategies for the diagnosis of SAH are very sensitive, there have been no large studies to confirm this in the UK population. Furthermore, the test characteristics of CT brain beyond 6 hours from onset are not well understood and there is limited biological plausibility for this defined time cutpoint. Finally, the performance of the Ottawa clinical decision rule has shown promise in the Canadian population. However, its performance in the UK has not been studied and there are concerns that due to the low specificity it may result in increased, rather than decreased rate of investigations. This study will therefore aim to assess the test characteristics of both a CT brain up to 24h from presentation and the Ottawa SAH clinical decision rule.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN: 18417679
Funding Statement
The Survey platform is provided courtesy of University of Bristol. The chief investigator is directly funded as a research fellow by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. They had no role in the design of this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
South West Frenchay Ethics Committee (19/SW/0243) UK and regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
N/A
List of Abbreviations
- (ED)
- Emergency Department
- (UK)
- United Kingdom
- (SAH)
- Subarachnoid Haemorrhage
- (CT)
- Computerised Tomography
- (NICE)
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
