4.1 Article

The use of atorvastatin for chronic subdural haematoma: a retrospective cohort comparison study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 72-77

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2016.1208806

关键词

Chronic Subdural Haematoma; elderly trauma; head injury; head trauma; manuscript; statin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition. Burr-hole for drainage is an effective treatment. However, recurrence can be up to 8-33% and is associated with morbidities and mortalities. The underlying pathogenesis was postulated to be localised inflammation and pathological aberrant vessels formation. Atorvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, is a type of lipid-lowering medication. In animal studies and a preliminary clinical trial, Atorvastatin was shown to be effective in the treatment of CSDH. It was found to inhibit inflammation and promote vascular maturation at the neomembrane of CSDH. Our study aimed to investigate the efficacy of Atorvastatin in CSDH. During the study period from January to December 2014, Atorvastatin was used in 12 CSDH patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 13-15 or Markwalder's Grading Scale (MGS) Grade 0-2. They were retrospectively compared with GCS- and MGS-matched controls who had not used statin. Improvement with haematoma resolution at 3 months was 75% (9/12) for the Atorvastatin group, versus 42% (5/12) for the Control group (p = 0.0977). The risk of deterioration requiring burr-hole drainage was 16.7% (2/12) in the Atorvastatin group, versus 58.3% (7/12) in the Control group (p = 0.0447). The Odds Ratio (OR) of deterioration requiring burr-hole drainage with Atorvastatin was 0.143 (95%Cl: 0.021-0.958), which favours the use of Atorvastatin in CSDH (p = 0.0451). The Number needed to treat (NNT) was 2.4 (p = 0.0447; 95%Cl: 1.31-14.93). In conclusion, this retrospective cohort comparison study has shown that CSDH with Atorvastatin had a lower rate of deterioration and burr-hole drainage.

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

4.1
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