4.7 Article

Impact of a protocol for acute antifibrinolytic therapy on aneurysm rebleeding after subarachnoid hemorrhage

期刊

STROKE
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 2617-2621

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.506097

关键词

aminocaproic acid; antifibrinolytic therapy; rebleeding; aneurysm; subarachnoid hemorrhage

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk A/S

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose - epsilon-Aminocaproic acid ( EACA) is an antifibrinolytic agent used to prevent rebleeding in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Although studies have found that a decrease in rebleeding with long-term antifibrinolytic therapy is offset by an increase in ischemic deficits, more recent studies have indicated that early, short-term therapy may be beneficial. Methods - We instituted a protocol for acute EACA administration starting at diagnosis and continued for a maximum duration of 72 hours after subarachnoid hemorrhage onset. We compared 73 patients treated with EACA with 175 non-EACA-treated patients. We sought to identify differences in the occurrence of rebleeding, side effects, and outcome. Results - Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. There was a significant decrease in rebleeding in EACA-treated patients (2.7%) versus non-EACA patients (11.4%). There was no difference in ischemic complications between cohorts. There was a significant 8-fold increase in deep venous thrombosis in the EACA group but no increase in pulmonary embolism. There was a nonsignificant 76% reduction in mortality attributable to rebleeding, a 13.3% increase in favorable outcome in good-grade EACA-treated patients, and a 6.8% increase in poor-grade patients. Conclusions - When used acutely, short-term EACA treatment resulted in decreased rebleeding without an increase in serious side effects in our selected group of patients. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are needed to determine whether acute antifibrinolytic therapy should be accepted as the standard of care in all patients.

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

4.7
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