Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome (RCVS) is a critical, often overlooked cerebrovascular condition marked by sudden, intense headaches that develop over days to weeks. These headaches, peaking within a minute, are frequently described as “thunderclap” headaches. While typically benign and self-limiting, RCVS can lead to severe complications, including ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES). Eclampsia and certain medications, especially vasoconstrictive and chemotherapeutic agents, are common triggers for RCVS.
Diagnosing RCVS relies on cerebral angiography, which reveals the characteristic “sausage on a string” appearance of constricted cerebral arteries. However, initial neuroimaging might appear normal. Management focuses on removing triggers, controlling symptoms like headaches and seizures, and managing blood pressure. This article delves into diagnostic imaging modalities, their interpretation, and evidence-based treatments for RCVS, emphasizing triggers, risk factors, and clinical presentations. It aims to equip healthcare providers with the knowledge to accurately and promptly achieve Rcvs Diagnosis, differentiate it from other cerebrovascular disorders, and implement appropriate management strategies. Furthermore, this article explores patient education and follow-up care, highlighting the importance of diagnostic criteria and imaging interpretation to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions in rcvs diagnosis.
Objectives:
- Identify clinical manifestations and diagnostic criteria specific to Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome to facilitate timely rcvs diagnosis.
- Screen patients presenting with sudden-onset “thunderclap” headaches for potential Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome triggers, including medications and physiological stressors, crucial for accurate rcvs diagnosis.
- Apply appropriate treatment modalities for Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome complications, such as ischemic stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage, based on clinical severity following rcvs diagnosis.
- Collaborate with interprofessional healthcare teams, including neurologists, radiologists, and pharmacists, to coordinate comprehensive care for patients with Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome after rcvs diagnosis.
Introduction to RCVS Diagnosis
Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is defined by sudden, explosive, and severe headaches that occur over a period of days to weeks due to underlying widespread cerebral vasoconstriction. Although generally benign and self-limiting, RCVS can result in serious complications such as ischemic stroke, convexity subarachnoid or other intracerebral hemorrhage, and posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES). Accurate rcvs diagnosis is paramount for effective patient management.
RCVS is now recognized as a syndrome of cerebrovascular dysregulation. This condition is characterized by severe, sudden-onset headaches, often termed “thunderclap” headaches (TCHs), where peak intensity is typically reached within the first minute. Recurrent TCHs are a key diagnostic indicator for rcvs diagnosis. Recognized triggers include eclampsia and vasoconstrictive and chemotherapeutic agents. The clinical course of RCVS is almost always reversible and self-limited, a crucial factor in differential rcvs diagnosis.
RCVS, along with PRES, falls under the umbrella of cerebrovascular dysregulation syndromes, sharing clinical and imaging features like headaches, visual disturbances, seizures, and confusion, which can complicate rcvs diagnosis. Management involves eliminating triggers, symptomatic relief for headaches and seizures, and blood pressure control.
Cerebral angiography is essential for rcvs diagnosis, visualizing the constriction of cerebral arteries as a classic “sausage on a string” appearance, indicative of RCVS. However, structural neuroimaging, especially in early stages, may not reveal abnormalities, making clinical suspicion and angiography critical for rcvs diagnosis.
Prior to the clear definition of RCVS, many patients were misdiagnosed with primary angiitis of the central nervous system (PACNS), leading to unnecessary brain biopsies and chronic immunosuppression. The development of diagnostic scores like the RCVS2 score has significantly reduced this misdiagnosis, improving the accuracy of rcvs diagnosis.
Etiology of RCVS
The precise link between recurrent TCHs and dynamic cerebral artery narrowing in RCVS remains unclear. Theories suggest the involvement of trigeminovascular or serotonergic pathways that connect cerebral vessels and the brainstem as potential underlying mechanisms in RCVS etiology and thus relevant to rcvs diagnosis.
Systemic hypertension may exacerbate blood-brain barrier breakdown, a common feature in cerebral dysregulation syndrome, contributing to RCVS pathology and influencing rcvs diagnosis and management.
Numerous triggers for RCVS have been identified, many associated with increased sympathetic tone. Primary headache disorders, especially exertional types, are significant. Women are more susceptible to RCVS during late pregnancy and postpartum; eclampsia and pre-eclampsia are also risk factors, important considerations in rcvs diagnosis for women of childbearing age. A wide range of drugs, both prescription and illicit, have been linked to RCVS. Illicit substances like cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, cannabis, and LSD are known triggers. Prescription drugs include anticholinergic agents, antimigraine medications, cough and cold suppressants, antidepressants, adrenergic agents, blood products, chemotherapeutic and immune-modulatory agents, hormonal agents, and anti-protozoal medications. Common substances such as coffee, eucalyptus, and licorice can also precipitate RCVS, highlighting the importance of medication and substance history in rcvs diagnosis.
Other potential triggers include tumors like pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma, trauma, head and neck surgery, and carotid dissection. Medical conditions, including antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), can also trigger RCVS, expanding the differential for rcvs diagnosis. The onset of RCVS symptoms after trigger exposure can vary from days to months, necessitating a detailed temporal history for accurate rcvs diagnosis.
While definitive genetic risk factors for RCVS are not fully established, the condition has been observed in patients with underlying genetic diseases like adult-onset Leigh syndrome. A study suggested that the Val66Met polymorphism in brain-derived neurotrophic factors might influence RCVS, with Val allele carriers showing higher vasoconstriction scores, suggesting a potential genetic component influencing disease severity and potentially rcvs diagnosis in the future.
Epidemiology of RCVS
Although considered rare, RCVS has gained increasing attention in medical literature over the past two decades. Publications on RCVS have significantly increased from 2003 to 2023, indicating growing recognition among clinicians and improved rcvs diagnosis. However, due to a lack of large-scale epidemiological studies, the true incidence and prevalence remain poorly understood. Increased awareness and wider use of vascular and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) likely contribute to the rising reported incidence, improving rcvs diagnosis rates. A 2019 study estimated the incidence to range from 7% to 54%, reflecting variability in case reporting and highlighting the ongoing challenges in epidemiological understanding of RCVS and standardized rcvs diagnosis.
RCVS predominantly affects adult women, with female-to-male ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1, even after accounting for postpartum cases. Interestingly, male predominance is observed in children. The age range of RCVS patients is broad, from infancy to the early 80s, but cohort studies report a mean onset age in the fifth decade of life. These demographic patterns are crucial for clinicians to consider during rcvs diagnosis.
As understanding of cerebral dysregulation has advanced, “RCVS” has replaced numerous older terms, including benign angiopathy of the CNS; cerebral vasoconstriction associated with drugs, chemotherapeutic agents, and immune modulators; Call syndrome; Call-Fleming syndrome; postpartum cerebral angiopathy; migraine angiitis; and CNS pseudovasculitis. This evolution in terminology reflects improved diagnostic clarity and standardization in rcvs diagnosis.
Pathophysiology of RCVS
The pathophysiology of RCVS, like its epidemiology, remains poorly understood. Current consensus points to transient dysregulation of cerebral vascular tone leading to multifocal vasoconstriction and dilatation, the hallmark angiographic feature used in rcvs diagnosis. Endothelial dysfunction, sympathetic hyperstimulation, and oxidative stress are considered significant pathogenic mechanisms in RCVS. Recent studies increasingly emphasize blood-brain barrier disruptions as a consequence of endothelial dysfunction in RCVS, further informing our understanding of its pathology and refining approaches to rcvs diagnosis.
History and Physical Examination for RCVS Diagnosis
Patients with RCVS commonly present with an explosive headache, reaching peak intensity within one minute – a thunderclap headache (TCH). TCHs recur in 85% to 90% of patients, typically weekly for up to 4 weeks, decreasing in intensity and frequency over time. Clinicians should suspect RCVS in any patient presenting with TCH, making detailed headache history crucial for initial rcvs diagnosis. A thorough headache history, including any prior migraines and changes in headache patterns, is essential for differentiating RCVS from other headache disorders in rcvs diagnosis.
Seizures and neurological deficits may emerge within the first 10 days of recurrent headaches. Focal symptoms like aphasia and hemiparesis may indicate underlying brain injury, typically ischemic or hemorrhagic complications of RCVS. Visual symptoms, including blurriness, cortical blindness, and scotomas, are also common. These neurological symptoms are critical to assess during rcvs diagnosis and management.
Generalized neurological dysfunction indicators include seizures and encephalopathy. Encephalopathy, often mild and transient, is likely related to severe headache pain. Seizures are typically generalized tonic-clonic and self-limited, occurring less frequently in RCVS than in PRES. Distinguishing between RCVS and PRES is important in differential rcvs diagnosis.
A history of potential triggers is crucial. This includes surgical history, especially neurosurgery, recent childbirth, and detailed medication, social, and sexual history. Inquiring about vasoactive substances, particularly adrenergic and serotonergic agents, is vital. Similarly, questioning about recreational substances, both licit (e.g., cannabis) and illicit (e.g., cocaine, amphetamines), is mandatory for accurate rcvs diagnosis. Family history should be explored, as RCVS has associations with heritable conditions like pheochromocytoma and porphyria, although direct genetic links to RCVS are not yet established, family history can provide context in rcvs diagnosis.
The 2019 RCVS2 score, based on a retrospective analysis of 202 patients with arteriopathy, includes five factors: TCH presence, intracranial carotid artery involvement, female sex, vasoactive trigger, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. TCH alone scores 5 points on a scale of -2 to 10. Scores of 5 or higher showed 90% sensitivity and 99% specificity for rcvs diagnosis, making it a valuable tool in clinical assessment.
Evaluation and Diagnostic Modalities for RCVS Diagnosis
After obtaining a history focused on TCH triggers, recent medications/substances, confusion, or seizures, a thorough neurological examination is essential, assuming hemodynamic stability. This examination should assess consciousness level, mental acuity, visual signs, and focal deficits like aphasia, neglect, hemiparesis, and hemisensory loss. Diffuse hyperreflexia is common, possibly reflecting serotonergic activity and autonomic dysregulation. Neurological exam findings are crucial in guiding further evaluation for rcvs diagnosis.
Over 70% of RCVS patients initially have normal structural brain imaging. However, within two weeks, approximately 70% of hospitalized patients develop subarachnoid or parenchymal hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, or vasogenic edema, with hemorrhagic events typically preceding ischemic ones. Edema and ischemia are preferentially seen in posterior watershed regions, cerebellum, and parietooccipital and frontal cortical-subcortical regions, while deep structures are rarely affected. Therefore, while initial imaging may be normal, follow-up imaging is critical to identify complications and confirm rcvs diagnosis.
The nature of TCH significantly guides initial workup. Recurrent TCH, as highlighted by the RCVS2 score, raises the pretest probability of RCVS to near 100%, potentially reducing the need for invasive procedures like lumbar puncture or brain biopsy in clear rcvs diagnosis scenarios.
For single TCH cases, potentially fatal conditions like aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, cervical artery dissection, meningitis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis must be ruled out. Emergent brain and cerebrovascular imaging is necessary. If imaging is negative for subarachnoid hemorrhage, lumbar puncture can exclude subarachnoid hemorrhage or meningitis. In recurrent TCH cases, brain imaging is still indicated to investigate RCVS sequelae, such as convexity bleeding, lobar hemorrhage, or ischemic stroke, even with high suspicion for rcvs diagnosis.
Angiographically, affected arteries in RCVS classically show smoothly tapered narrowing alternating with dilatation, creating the “sausage on a string” appearance. Lesions progress centripetally, mainly affecting medium to large arteries. Transcranial ultrasound can reveal elevated blood flow velocities, though correlations are often modest. Cerebral angiography remains the gold standard for confirming vascular abnormalities in rcvs diagnosis.
Image Alt Text: Cerebral angiogram illustrating the characteristic “sausage on a string” appearance in RCVS, showing alternating segments of constriction and dilation in cerebral arteries, a key diagnostic feature for RCVS diagnosis.
Treatment and Management Strategies for RCVS
Current RCVS treatment approaches are based on recognizing it as primarily benign and self-limited. The goal is to prevent misdiagnosis leading to invasive investigations, favoring symptomatic treatment over empiric approaches. Identifying and removing triggers is crucial until clinical and imaging findings resolve, central to RCVS management post rcvs diagnosis.
Long-term antiepileptic agents are generally unwarranted without irreversible brain injury, even with structural brain lesions. Symptomatic management of headaches and hyperglycemia, if present, is important as hyperglycemia can worsen outcomes. Patients exposed to glucocorticoids should be monitored in higher acuity settings. Laxatives, bed rest, and temporary avoidance of sexual activity may be beneficial supportive measures. These management strategies aim to mitigate symptoms and complications after rcvs diagnosis.
Management errors in RCVS treatment include using vasoconstrictive migraine medications (triptans, ergots) for headaches, empiric glucocorticoid use for suspected PACNS, and proceeding to brain biopsy or intra-arterial vasodilators to rule out non-RCVS arteriopathies like vasculitis. Intra-arterial vasodilators have temporary effects and can cause reperfusion injury, thus their use is best avoided. Avoiding these missteps is critical for effective RCVS management following rcvs diagnosis.
Differential Diagnosis of RCVS
When cerebral angiography reveals new intracranial arteriopathy, differential diagnoses include moyamoya disease, intracranial arteriosclerosis, infectious vasculitis, and PACNS. Differentiating these conditions is crucial for accurate rcvs diagnosis.
PACNS frequently mimics RCVS. RCVS patients are typically younger (mean age 43 vs. 51) and have a higher female percentage (approximately 2.6-fold). Triggers like medications, illicit drugs, or physiological stress are usually identified in RCVS, rarely in PACNS. Headache characteristics differ; RCVS headaches are dramatically sudden with recurrent TCH, while PACNS headaches are present in about 50% of patients, with only 6% reporting TCHs. These clinical distinctions aid in differential rcvs diagnosis.
Imaging is vital for differentiating RCVS from PACNS. Initial CT or MRI scans show abnormalities in 70% of RCVS patients, but exclusively abnormal initial scans in PACNS patients. Infarcts are significantly more frequent in PACNS (81%) than RCVS (28%). Vasogenic edema and convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage are typical of RCVS but rare in PACNS. The hyperintense artery sign on FLAIR MRI appears in about 61% of RCVS patients versus only 7% of PACNS patients. These imaging differences are key in differentiating RCVS from PACNS during rcvs diagnosis.
Prognosis of RCVS
Patients with RCVS triggered by trauma or surgery and those with focal cortical deficits have a higher risk of residual neurological deficits and require close monitoring post rcvs diagnosis.
Some RCVS patients report mild persistent headaches. Intracranial or subarachnoid hemorrhages are early complications, occurring within 3 days of headache onset for intracranial bleeds and within 10 days for subarachnoid bleeding. Ischemic stroke typically occurs about 2 weeks after headache onset in those who develop this complication. Understanding the timeline of complications is important for managing patient expectations after rcvs diagnosis.
Many RCVS patients fully recover without residual symptoms, as vasoconstriction often resolves spontaneously. Clinical and angiographic features may not always resolve concurrently. By definition, RCVS symptoms and vasoconstriction changes do not exceed 3 months and usually resolve within weeks. Despite the reversible nature and generally favorable long-term prognosis, severe vasoconstriction can occasionally lead to ischemic stroke and, rarely, death, highlighting the need for vigilance even after confirmed rcvs diagnosis.
Complications of RCVS
Significant RCVS complications primarily occur within the first week of headache onset, including localized convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage (22%), leukoencephalopathy (9%), intracerebral hemorrhage (6%), seizure (3%), and transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke (20%), with most ischemic events in the second week. These complications can cause permanent neurological deficits. Recognizing and managing these potential complications is critical in RCVS care following rcvs diagnosis.
Deterrence and Patient Education for RCVS
Upon rcvs diagnosis, patient education is paramount. Patients should be informed about the condition’s typically temporary, reversible, and self-limited nature. Counseling on potential triggers and the importance of avoiding them or informing healthcare providers about their use is essential.
Educating patients about medications used to manage RCVS, especially calcium channel blockers, while emphasizing avoiding glucocorticoids (which can worsen outcomes), is crucial. Counseling patients to avoid activities that might exacerbate headaches is also necessary. Patient education should be tailored to individual needs, health literacy, and learning styles, providing clear, concise information and allowing questions and clarification. Involving family members or caregivers in the education process is recommended to improve adherence and understanding post rcvs diagnosis.
Pearls and Other Issues in RCVS
While transient global amnesia association with RCVS is not extensively reported, similarities in triggers suggest emotional and physical stress may induce acute neuronal or vascular dysfunction via sympathetic overactivity. Further research is needed to explore this potential link in RCVS and related conditions.
Distinguishing RCVS from PACNS depends on headache characteristics, imaging lesion patterns, and cerebral angiographic appearance. RCVS typically shows smoothly tapered narrowing and dilatation, whereas PACNS exhibits a more notched and irregular appearance. These angiographic distinctions are crucial for differential rcvs diagnosis.
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes in RCVS Management
RCVS remains underdiagnosed. Clinicians must recognize clinical and radiographic features for prompt rcvs diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary testing.
An interprofessional healthcare team, including primary care providers, emergency medicine physicians, neurologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and specialty care nurses, is crucial for optimal RCVS management. Emergency and critical care nurses monitor patients, administer treatments, and update the team on patient status. Pharmacists review medications for appropriate dosage and identify drug interactions. Nurses assist with procedures, educate patients, administer medications, and coordinate care between clinicians and pharmacists. This collaborative approach is essential for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications in RCVS patients after rcvs diagnosis.
Review Questions
(Note: Review questions from the original article are omitted as per instructions.)
References
1.Chen SP, Wang SJ. Pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. J Biomed Sci. 2022 Sep 21;29(1):72. [PMC free article: PMC9489486] [PubMed: 36127720]
2.Singhal AB. Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome and Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome as Syndromes of Cerebrovascular Dysregulation. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2021 Oct 01;27(5):1301-1320. [PubMed: 34618761]
3.Jumah A, Albanna AJ, Qureshi M, Malik S. Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome Secondary to Loperamide Ingestion: A Case Report. Neurohospitalist. 2024 Apr;14(2):186-188. [PMC free article: PMC11040623] [PubMed: 38666269]
4.M M B, Jhadav M, Singh V, Paliwal VK. Recurrent thunderclap headache after endovascular embolization of pial AV malformation by onyx material. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2024 Jun;241:108290. [PubMed: 38663200]
5.Miller TR, Shivashankar R, Mossa-Basha M, Gandhi D. Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome, Part 1: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Clinical Course. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Aug;36(8):1392-9. [PMC free article: PMC7964694] [PubMed: 25593203]
6.Chen SP, Fuh JL, Wang SJ. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: an under-recognized clinical emergency. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2010 May;3(3):161-71. [PMC free article: PMC3002654] [PubMed: 21179608]
7.Ohyama-Tamagake A, Kaneko K, Itami R, Nakano M, Namioka Y, Izumi R, Sato H, Suzuki H, Takeda A, Okazaki Y, Yatsuka Y, Abe T, Murayama K, Sugeno N, Misu T, Aoki M. Adult-onset Leigh Syndrome with a m.9176T>C Mutation Manifested As Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome. Intern Med. 2023 Jul 01;62(13):1995-1998. [PMC free article: PMC10372267] [PubMed: 36543208]
8.Chen SP, Fuh JL, Wang SJ, Tsai SJ, Hong CJ, Yang AC. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene Val66Met polymorphism modulates reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndromes. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 18;6(3):e18024. [PMC free article: PMC3060928] [PubMed: 21437208]
9.Sveinsson O, Love Á, Vilmarsson V, Olafsson I. [Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome – a common cause of thunderclap headache]. Laeknabladid. 2020 Feb;106(2):79-83. [PubMed: 32009625]
10.Burton TM, Bushnell CD. Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome. Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2253-2258. [PubMed: 31272323]
11.Spadaro A, Scott KR, Koyfman A, Long B. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: A narrative review for emergency clinicians. Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Dec;50:765-772. [PubMed: 34879501]
12.Kalladka D, Siddiqui A, Tyagi A, Newman E. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome secondary to caffeine withdrawal. Scott Med J. 2018 Feb;63(1):22-24. [PubMed: 28480791]
13.Pham H, Gosselin-Lefebvre S, Pourshahnazari P, Yip S. Recurrent thunderclap headaches from reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome associated with duloxetine, xylometazoline and rhinitis medicamentosa. CMAJ. 2020 Nov 09;192(45):E1403-E1406. [PMC free article: PMC7669296] [PubMed: 33168762]
14.Sattar A, Manousakis G, Jensen MB. Systematic review of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2010 Oct;8(10):1417-21. [PMC free article: PMC3020907] [PubMed: 20936928]
15.Rocha EA, Topcuoglu MA, Silva GS, Singhal AB. RCVS2 score and diagnostic approach for reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Neurology. 2019 Feb 12;92(7):e639-e647. [PubMed: 30635475]
16.Nannini M, Biggeri M, Putoto G. Comparative Insights to Advance Political Economy Analysis: A Response to Recent Commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:8367. [PMC free article: PMC10843163] [PubMed: 38618761]
17.Perillo T, Paolella C, Perrotta G, Serino A, Caranci F, Manto A. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: review of neuroimaging findings. Radiol Med. 2022 Sep;127(9):981-990. [PMC free article: PMC9362037] [PubMed: 35932443]
18.Singhal AB, Topcuoglu MA, Fok JW, Kursun O, Nogueira RG, Frosch MP, Caviness VS. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndromes and primary angiitis of the central nervous system: clinical, imaging, and angiographic comparison. Ann Neurol. 2016 Jun;79(6):882-94. [PubMed: 27043703]
19.Song TJ, Lee KH, Li H, Kim JY, Chang K, Kim SH, Han KH, Kim BY, Kronbichler A, Ducros A, Koyanagi A, Jacob L, Kim MS, Yon DK, Lee SW, Yang JM, Hong SH, Ghayda RA, Kang JW, Shin JI, Smith L. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: a comprehensive systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021 May;25(9):3519-3529. [PubMed: 34002826]
20.Ducros A, Boukobza M, Porcher R, Sarov M, Valade D, Bousser MG. The clinical and radiological spectrum of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. A prospective series of 67 patients. Brain. 2007 Dec;130(Pt 12):3091-101. [PubMed: 18025032]
21.Ducros A. Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;121:1725-41. [PubMed: 24365443]
22.Chen SP, Fuh JL, Lirng JF, Chang FC, Wang SJ. Recurrent primary thunderclap headache and benign CNS angiopathy: spectra of the same disorder? Neurology. 2006 Dec 26;67(12):2164-9. [PubMed: 17190937]
23.Ducros A, Wolff V. The Typical Thunderclap Headache of Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome and its Various Triggers. Headache. 2016 Apr;56(4):657-73. [PubMed: 27015869]
Disclosure: Omar Nesheiwat declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
Disclosure: Lama Al-Khoury declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
