4.4 Article

Rapid blood pressure reduction in acute intracerebral hemorrhage: Feasibility and safety

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 316-321

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-008-9085-8

关键词

intracerebral hemorrhage; hypertension; hematoma growth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The optimal blood pressure (BP) for treating acute intracerebral hemorrhage remains (ICH) uncertain. High BP may contribute to hematoma growth while excessive BP reduction might precipitate peri-hemorrhage ischemia. We examine here the feasibility and safety of reducing BP to lower than presently recommended levels in patients with acute ICH. Methods Patients with ICH were prospectively randomized to standard BP treatment (mean arterial BP [MAP] 110-130 mmHg) or aggressive BP lowering (MAP < 110 mmHg) within 8 h of symptom onset. MAP was managed during the 48 h treatment period. NIHSS was obtained at baseline, 24, and 48 h. Brain CT was done 24 h after symptoms. A modified Rankin Scale (mRs) was obtained at 90 days. A clinical decline (NIHSS drop >= 2 points) within the first 48 h was the primary endpoint. Hematoma enlargement at 24 h was a secondary endpoint. Results We enrolled 21 patients into each group. Mean age was 60.6 +/- 12.3 years and MAP on presentation was 147.6 +/- 18.2 mmHg. Treatment was started on average 3.2 +/- 2.2 h after symptom onset. Baseline clinical variables were identical between the 2 treatment groups. Target blood pressure was achieved within 87.1 +/- 59.6 min in the standard group and 163.5 +/- 163.8 min in the aggressive BP treatment group. There were no significant differences in early neurological deterioration, hematoma and edema growth, and clinical outcome at 90 days. Conclusion A more aggressive reduction of acute hypertension after ICH does not increase the rate of neurological deterioration even when treatment is initiated within hours of symptom onset. Lowering BP aggressively did not affect hematoma and edema expansion but this possibility deserves further study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据