This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/12/2877    most recent 01.STR.0000248201.38387.eav1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Anzola, G. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Anzola, G. P. Related Collections Related Article

(Stroke. 2006;37:2877.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Letters to the Editor

Response to Letter by Di Legge et al

Gian Paolo Anzola, MD

Service of Neurology, S. Orsola Hospital FBF, Brescia, Italy

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Response:

Di Legge and colleagues suggest that modifying conventional vascular risk factors (RF) as well as lifestyle habits may influence migraine outcome, and the lack of control on this variable may have interfered with the effect of patent foramen ovale closure in our study. In support of this contention they quote the higher load of vascular RF found in controls.

The reported increased frequency of vascular RF in migraineurs with aura¹ is intriguing and somewhat misleading inasmuch as some of them such as hypertension, use of contraceptives and smoking might themselves be triggers of migraine attacks in migraineurs with aura and hence increase the likelihood of self-reported migraine. Moreover, although theoretically appealing, to the best of our knowledge there is no evidence supporting the notion that modifying vascular risk factors may alter migraine course to an extent comparable with that found in our patients, except, perhaps the abstention from recognized trigger foodstuff. Finally, the quoted higher frequency of risk factors in controls in our study applies only to patients who had had a stroke, because between controls and patients subjected to closure but with no previous history of stroke there was no difference whatsoever. On the other hand, there is no a priori reason to believe that patients in the control group were treated differently with respect to the interventional cohort in terms of behavioral counseling or therapeutic monitoring.

Therefore, although admitting that in general terms migraine treatment should be comprehensive, including counseling for a healthy behavior, we do not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Migraine Relief After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Should Vascular Risk Factor Control Be Achieved First?

Silvia Di Legge and Fabrizio Sallustio
Stroke 2006 37: 2876. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]