4.6 Review

Pharmacologic reduction of angiographic vasospasm in experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 32, Issue 9, Pages 1645-1658

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2012.57

Keywords

animal model; pharmacologic reduction; subarachnoid hemorrhage; translation; vasospasm

Funding

  1. Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal models have been developed to simulate angiographic vasospasm secondary to subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and to test pharmacologic treatments. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic treatments that have been tested in humans and in preclinical studies to determine if animal models inform results reported in humans. A systematic review and meta-analysis of SAH studies was performed. We investigated predictors of translation from animals to humans with multivariate logistic regression. Pharmacologic reduction of vasospasm was effective in mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, nonhuman primates (standard mean difference of -1.74; 95% confidence interval -2.04 to -1.44) and humans. Animal studies were generally of poor methodologic quality and there was evidence of publication bias. Subgroup analysis by drug and species showed that statins, tissue plasminogen activator, erythropoietin, endothelin receptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, fasudil, and tirilazad were effective whereas magnesium was not. Only evaluation of vasospasm >3 days after SAH was independently associated with successful translation. We conclude that reduction of vasospasm is effective in animals and humans and that evaluation of vasospasm >3 days after SAH may be preferable for preclinical models. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2012) 32, 1645-1658; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2012.57; published online 25 April 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available