Hi all,
Sorry to do it this way but I can't think of another way and I wanted to put my expereiences into the knowledge pool,
A couple of weeks or more ago I read on this forum a posting by a guy on the subject of oxygen usage in which he claimed to have Astronaut and SCUBA training which had helped him to develop the oxygen therapy such that he had halfed the time necessary for oxygen to abort his CH. I now can't find the thread, otherwise this post would be on that thread  -  sorry.
I have been Chronic for over 3 years now, prior to that I was episodic for 5 or 6 years or so (time flies). I was so desperate to relieve the chronic CH that I decided to follow this guy's advice, which, put briefly, consisted of turning the valve upto to 25 l/m and, effectively, hyperventilating on 100% oxygen which, he claimed, lead to respiratory alkalosis (if I remember correctly).
Well, ....... I've now tried it 3 times with 100% success.
Previously 20 to 25 mins on 8 l/m (the next lowest setting on my reg) was effective 75% of the time when used with Almotriptan tabs (GP is reluctant (because of his budget I suspect) to give me injectable Triptan and, to be honest my HAs rarely get above Kip 5 or 6 these days but can last for up to 24 hours,so maybe he is keeping the injections back for if I begin to hit Kip 10 in the future  :)

Sorry, hit the wrong button before completing the posting ::)
Anyway, tonight I initially retaliated by taking 1 grm paracetamol and 30 mg of codeine (as prescribed by my GP and Neuro, possibly because of other health problems). This sometimes takes the edge of the CH enough for me to live with it until it fades of it's own accord and used in conjunction with oxygen for 20 to 25 mins at 8 l/m will push it well into the background 80 to 90% of the time  -  when that doesn't work I hit the triptan tabs. After 4 hours the HA began creeping back again so, instead of taking more paracetamol and codeine I hyperventilated on 25 l/m of oxygen for 10 minutes and, hey presto !!, HA gone.
Based on my experience I can only recommend it to other sufferers  -  nothing to lose except painful times  -  give it a whirl !!
Cheers,
JoeKen.

In the old days of yore, Oxygen was originally prescribed at 7-8 LPM, with minimal success. Then they kicked it up to 15 LPM and the success rates soared. Batch has been working on a project that talks a lot about 25 LPM flows being even better!!! The more we refine it, the higher up our success rates seem to go.

I use a demand valve and hyperventilate , like you, in 6-8 minutes, I'm pain free. Awesome feeling isn't it? ;)

Joe

And I'm willing to bet that you go higher than 25 lpm when you first jump on it. Joe.

Demand valves are THE way go, but I don't think that folks understand just how much O2 they are pulling in when they use them. Try using a 25 lpm regulator now and tell me that it keeps up with you.........

Afraid you're probably right Marc. I do the empty the lungs ALL the way, and then suck em full! Shudder to think what that equates to in volume! :o

Joe

Joe,

I only made the comment because it was a long haul to get people to think about numbers higher than about 8-12 lpm. Now, people are thinking "wow, all the way to 25 lpm" and yet many people will not get the full benefit at that LOW flow.

I do not have a demand valve, so I rigged two 25 lpm regulators together with a "T" in the tubing because 25 lpm was way short.

This has made me acutely aware of what it takes to hyper-ventilate for a very few minutes during the initial "oh shit, here it comes!" phase. (Shortly thereafter, I crank down the flow to an easy breathing pace) I have worked hands-on with two other CH'ers who sucked the 3 liter bag flat in 1 to 1.5 breaths at 25 lpm. They are convinced now........

Again, the required flow will vary wildly per person. It just needs to be enough to forcefully hyper-ventilate with pure O2 for a few minutes at whatever that flow rate happens to be.

That first few minutes are the crucial component of my incredible success with O2. Until I decided to try it that way, I said "oxygen doesn't work well for me" for about 11 years.

THAT was a whole bunch of needless daily agony. Now it's so simple, hit the O2 and add an abortive med of choice if needed. No more long, drawn out high level hits - for me at least.

Marc

One additional comment:

I have been reminded by several people that I may be a bit over zealous about high flow oxygen because it does work quite well for many people at around 8 lpm. For others, it doesn't work at all. Both are valid points, which I don't mean to disregard.

My point is that hyper-ventilating on 100% O2 for a few minutes most often works for most people with real CH's.

So, restating it a different way:

If a CH sufferer doesn't see dramatic results with O2, simply going to a much higher flow rate may provide relief.

(Is that better?  ;) )

Marc

Hi All,
Just going to drift this post a little, if that's all right  -  if not I don't mind if the Mod moves it to an appropriate place. I have wondered for a long time why breathing pure oxygen, irrespective of flow rate, should kick a CH into the long grass for many sufferers. I have heard that oxygen contracts/narrows (right word ?) the swollen blood vessels, so reducing the pressure on the adjacent nerve endings and so reducing pain  -  is there unambiguous clinical evidence for the effect of blood vessel contraction?  -  I'm not being 'cute', I just don't know. I have also read on this forum that it has the effect of 'flushing out' excess levels of carbon dioxide which cause CH. Which is true, either , neither or both to some extent?
The reason I ask is that 19 months ago I was found to have a 'hole in the heart'. The Consultant who diagnosed it (using trans-cranial doppler examination if I remember correctly) said "It's a large hole but the good news is that it's a 'normal' hole". By this he meant that the wall between the ventricles did not fully close shortly after birth, which is what it is supposed to do. The net effect of this is that it allows blood which should be pumped to the lungs where it is finely filtered (getting rid of potentially dangerous 'debris' collected on it's journey round the body) and reoxygenated. What this means is that blood relatively rich in carbon dioxide is allowed to recirculate round the body where it will collect even more carbon dioxide. I suspect (I have no medical training) that, in extremis, it may be possible for this to build up to levels which may not reach dangerous but may reach levels in some more susceptible people to trigger CH. It is also a fact that, under physical stress (muscular effort) the undesirable blood flow increases markedly.
A further (maybe) relevant fact is that, statistically, a higher proportion of migraine sufferers have 'holes in the heart' than the public at large  -  is the same true of CH sufferers? There is also clinical evidence, according to the above referenced Consultant, that people who have their 'hole in the heart' surgically repaired for non-headache reasons often report a reduction in migraines  -  again, is the same true of CH sufferers?
The question I am trying to raise, I think, is: -
Is undiagnosed 'holes in the heart' a major cause (maybe even THE cause) of CH? Put another way, do any CH sufferers KNOW FOR A FACT they do NOT have a hole in the heart. It is often not easy to diagnose, requiring special equipment and skilled practitioners, and usually has no obviuos symptons.
Anybody any thoughts?

Quote:

I have heard that oxygen contracts/narrows (right word ?) the swollen blood vessels, so reducing the pressure on the adjacent nerve endings and so reducing pain  -  is there unambiguous clinical evidence for the effect of blood vessel contraction?

There is research going on about this (see Pathophysiology of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, The Lancet Neurology,  Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2009).

In short: It looks like the assumption that the pressure of swollen blood vessels to the nerves as the sole reason that leads to the pain has been proven wrong.

The problem with this is that nobody knows why O2 or triptanes work. There are theories (mostly regarding interaction with the brain) but nobody knows for sure.

Oliver

I recall when that was being looked at by respected researchers several years ago.

A few of us here on this site have suspected that they were on to something, but the older conventional assumptions were deeply rooted.