Clusterheadaches.com Message Board


    
      
        Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2004 Posts >> New IHS Classification Guide
        
(Message started by: Gator on Jun 16^th, 2004, 4:23am)

Title: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Gator on Jun 16^th, 2004, 4:23am

In case some of you didn't know, there is a new IHS Classification Guide out. One of the biggest changes I see right away is the criteria for being Chronic. Instead of a year without more than 14 consecutive days break, it is now a year without remissions lasting more than a month.

Here is the link. You can't print it from acrobat. You may be able to reduce the image of whatever page you want a copy of so you can see the whole page, then do a screen shot. Bring up the screen shot in the program of your choice crop, enlarge and print.

http://216.25.100.131/ihscommon/guidelines/pdfs/ihc_II_main_no_print.pdf

Enjoy.

Gator

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Svenn on Jun 16^th, 2004, 4:28am

thnx Gator

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by pubgirl on Jun 16^th, 2004, 5:57am

Thanks Gator

Another significant change is that the diagnsotic criteria now include restlessness/agitation.

Wendy

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by UN_SOLVED on Jun 16^th, 2004, 6:19am

Looks like alot of good info. Thanx

"Erythroprosopagia of Bing" . ... [smiley=huh.gif]

Unsolved

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Ueli on Jun 16^th, 2004, 11:17am

Quote:

One of the biggest changes I see right away is the criteria for being Chronic. Instead of a year without more than 14 consecutive days break, it is now a year without remissions lasting more than a month.

I think more important than the duration of remission is the "with or without medication" part. By the old definition it was not clear if an effective preventive treatment terminated the chronic status or not.

Since I upped the Verapamil slightly last December (560 to 600 mg) I only have occasional light break throughs (Kip 3) and I'm still sucking on the same oxygen tank I got before New Year. But I don't think my current cycle (5.5 years and counting) has broken yet.

PFNADs
Ueli [smiley=smokin.gif]

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Root on Jun 16^th, 2004, 12:19pm

Save to VIM, Xemacs, Kate, Kwrite, Abiword, XPDF, Midnight Commander, TeX, LaTeX, PE or Ghostview. Remove the no print extension. Print.
Portable Document Format. Gotta love the guy who came up with it. Works with almost anything.

[smiley=smokin.gif]

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by don on Jun 16^th, 2004, 1:10pm

Quote:

I think more important than the duration of remission is the "with or without medication" part.

I agree, but just for the sake of argument...................Do you belive there is a preventative out there that would, in and of itself, provide 30 consecutive days of pain relief to a chronic sufferer?

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by ClusterChuck on Jun 16^th, 2004, 2:34pm

But there are names that we can use other than the dreaded "cluster HEADACHE" label ...

I kind of liked:
Hemicrania Angioparalytica we could call it HCAP
or
Hemicrania Nevralgiformis Chronica we could call it HCNC

Those might make people scratch their heads a little bit!

Chuck

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by eyes_afire on Jun 16^th, 2004, 7:15pm

I agree with Ueli. Generally, things aren't horrible as long as I take verapamil. My O2 tank has lasted a long time (until recently). The several times I've had decent stretches of no CH (thinking the 'coast was clear'), I would taper the verapamil and then get pulverized. Been trying to stop the verapamil, but can't. About 18 months solid this go-round (with several taper attempts) and shadows since 2001. Am I chronic? Don't know, don't care anymore. Can't stop verapamil. :(

--- Steve

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by UN_SOLVED on Jun 16^th, 2004, 7:26pm

Someone not long ago said they were diagnosed with CH. It had just started (first cycle). Their doctor said CH. I said it was too early to tell. 1 cycle does NOT mean CH. This article proves it ... Look Below
http://cluster.home.insightbb.com/CH_criteria.jpg
Unsolved

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by pubgirl on Jun 16^th, 2004, 8:18pm

Unsolved

I disagree. This text isn't the Bible. Even Goadbsy himself says the IHS definition of chronic is a random one and is just a number. I was diagnosed during the first cycle, and it was an easy diagnosis for the neuro as all the symptoms were classic. I know of others in the same situation, Thank God we didn't meet a neuro who said "Sorry, can't diagnose clusters and treat them because you haven't had 2 cycles yet"

Wendy

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Drk^Angel on Jun 16^th, 2004, 8:53pm

Ghostview? We don't need no stinkin' Ghostview... Check this out... Print... Copy and paste... Whatever...

http://mysite.verizon.net/darkangl/ihc_II_main.pdf

Brought to you by the good folks at Clusters 'R' Us.

PFDAN.............................. Drk^Angel

PS... Get it while ya can... Dunno how long I'll be able to leave it up.

DA

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by UN_SOLVED on Jun 17^th, 2004, 3:44am

Well, I guess your disagreeing with Goadbsy then. He's the one who wrote the criteria ... not me.
Read the link above ... That's what it says.

What would you all think if someone told you ...

" I had clusters once " ????

Unsolved

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Drk^Angel on Jun 17^th, 2004, 5:47am

Goadsby didn't write the criteria all himself. But even if he did, a first time sufferer would still probably be diagnosed as a 3.4.1 probable cluster headache, until either they have cycles to prove 3.1.1 ECH, it doesn't cycle but continues and proves 3.1.2 CCH, or other symptoms surface to prove that it's not CH at all.

But then again... The copied section above is for diagnosising between ECH and CCH, not for diagnosising CH.

Diagnostic criteria:
A. At least 5 attacks fulfilling criteria B–D

This is why it can't be definitively diagnosed as CH on the first attack.

PFDAN............................... Drk^Angel

P.S. Edited to fix a word, to let this ramble make more sense.

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Kevin_M on Jun 17^th, 2004, 8:31am

on 06/16/04 at 20:18:00, pubgirl wrote:

Some illnesses don't read textbooks. I'd agree also. After six months of relentless pain, sucking oxygen at night and during the day, aborting with imitrex also and getting themselves up to over 650mg of verapamil to prevent while still getting hit in a first cycle, is not one person I would want to tell that they don't have clusters yet. I'm sure they will be rather insistantly be replying to you different very quickly. That distinction is best left to the textbooks.
The fact that it will return though would be expected, in that respect, the book foretells correctly.

Kevin M

Going back to Alexander Friedman predicting expansion of the universe extapolating using the general theory of relativity, and Edwin Hubble confirming by observation, since that time science has changed it's tune. Some used to say never believe a scientic theory unless it is confirmed by obserservation or experiment, but now never believing an observation or experiment unless it is confirmed by a theory is on equal ground. Physical obsersevation can be as deceiving as a theory being
incorrect. It goes both ways.

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Jayne on Jun 17^th, 2004, 10:36am

on 06/16/04 at 13:10:13, don wrote:

There is for me Don. 6 months pain free. Lithium. I know if I came off I would revert to my chronic agony. I have not gone into natural remission, it is the Lithium

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Jeepgun on Jun 17^th, 2004, 1:42pm

Since I started mainlining heroin, drinking bleach, and choking down a live toad every morning, I've felt great! My problem with cluster headaches now seems almost incidental! [smiley=laugh.gif]

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by don on Jun 17^th, 2004, 2:06pm

Quote:

There is for me Don. 6 months pain free. Lithium. I know if I came off I would revert to my chronic agony. I have not gone into natural remission, it is the Lithium

That was the answer I was hoping for.

Quote:

Since I started mainlining heroin, drinking bleach, and choking down a live toad every morning, I've felt great! My problem with cluster headaches now seems almost incidental!

That was not. I like my toads deep fried.

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Gator on Jun 17^th, 2004, 2:09pm

Posted by UN_SOLVED on: 06/16/04 at 18:26:46

Quote:

CH is CH. The criteria for CH is listed in section 3.1 on page 44. All that is required is to have 5 or more attacks meeting the criteria. There is nothing saying you can't get hit with ch and suffer for a few months and then they go away forever. I know it doesn't normally happen this way.

Un_Solved, the criteria you are quoting is Section 3.1.1 for Episodics. It is basically saying that in order to be episodic, you have to have more than one episode.

The critea for chronics is in section 3.1.2

Gator

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Drk^Angel on Jun 17^th, 2004, 6:36pm

Yeah... What Gator said... That's what I was tryin' to say, but so miserably messed up in my sleep deprived state.

PFDAN.................................. Drk^Angel

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by UN_SOLVED on Jun 17^th, 2004, 7:33pm

When that person said their doctor said they had CH...I just thought it was too early to confirm. They had been suffering for 2 - 3 weeks (if I remember correctly). Personally, I think if someone starts suffering severe headaches suddenly ... tests (MRI's etc) should be performed to rule out other things.
From the symptoms this person described, it did sound like CH ... the doctor was just very quick at diagnosing it and i'm not sure they had went though the 'normal' tests yet.

Unsolved

My personal opinion:
If someone suffers severe headaches (like CH attacks) for a few weeks then it goes away and never returns ... they had a bad bout of headaches ... not clusters. CLUSTERS COME BACK FOR A VISIT. But then again ... that's my opinion

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Prense on Jun 18^th, 2004, 9:14am

I am still on my 1st cycle... Of course, it has been over 11 years now.

Chris

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by jonny on Jun 18^th, 2004, 8:29pm

These fucks that dont have CH and can talk all they want, untill they have CH they aint shit to me.

Meds will mask chronic in my book, after 30 years i think I have more say than some pencil pusher.

..............................................jonny

Title: Re: New IHS Classification Guide
Post by Ueli on Jun 18^th, 2004, 10:13pm

Hey jonny, are you all riled up by the quote of UN_SOLVED:

Quote:

B: At least two cluster periods lasting 7-365 days and separated by painfree remission of >= 1 month.

By this definition you're nothing but a wailing meegrainer.

Ueli ;;D ;;D ;;D ;;D ;;D ;;D ;;D

PS, I hope your mom likes this post :P