4.5 Article

Endovascular Treatment of Medically Refractory Cerebral Vasospasm Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 10, Pages 1911-1916

Publisher

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2183

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000079] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [K23 NS044014, K02 NS060892] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CV following aneurysmal SAH is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. We review our experiences using PTA and IA verapamil infusion for treating medically refractory cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with SAH admitted from July 2003 to January 2008. RESULTS: Of 546 patients admitted within 72 hours of symptom onset, 231 patients (42%) developed symptomatic CV and 189 patients (35%) required endovascular therapy. A total of 346 endovascular sessions were performed consisting of 1 single angioplasty, 286 IA verapamil infusions, and 59 combined treatments. PTA was performed on 151 vessel segments, and IA verapamil was infused in 720 vessel segments. IA verapamil doses ranged from 2.0 to 30.0 mg per vessel segment and from 3.0 to 55.0 mg per treatment session. Repeat treatments were necessary in 102 patients (54%) for persistent, recurrent, or worsening CV. There were 6 treatment-related complications, of which 2 resulted in clinical worsening. No deaths were attributable to endovascular therapy. At follow-up, 115 patients (61%) had a good outcome and 55 patients (29%) had a poor outcome. Sixteen patients died from causes related to SAH, while 3 died from other medical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatments are an integral part of managing patients with medically refractory CV. In our experience, PTA and IA verapamil are safe, with a low complication rate, but further studies are required to determine appropriate patient selection and treatment efficacy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available