4.7 Article

Invasive Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Cerebral VasoSpasm after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (IMCVS)-A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206197

关键词

intracranial aneurysm; treatment; subarachnoid hemorrhage; vasospasm; delayed ischemic neurological deficit; balloon angioplasty; intra-arterial spasmolysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is often treated with invasive endovascular therapy. However, a prospective randomized multicenter trial found that conservative therapy may lead to better clinical outcomes at 6 months compared to invasive treatment.
Cerebral vasospasm (CVS) is associated with delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The most frequently used form of rescue therapy for CVS is invasive endovascular therapy. Due to a lack of prospective data, we performed a prospective randomized multicenter trial (NCT01400360). A total of 34 patients in three centers were randomized to invasive endovascular treatment or conservative therapy at diagnosis of relevant CVS onset. Imaging data was assessed by a neuroradiologist blinded for treatment allocation. Primary outcome measure was development of DCI. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcome at 6 months after SAH. A total of 18 of the 34 patients were treated conservatively, and 16 patients were treated with invasive endovascular treatment for CVS. There was no statistical difference in the rate of cerebral infarctions either at initial or at the follow-up MRI between the groups. However, the outcome at 6 months was better in patients treated conservatively (mRs 2 +/- 1.5 vs. 4 +/- 1.8, p = 0.005). Invasive endovascular treatment for CVS does not lead to a lower rate of DCI but might lead to poorer outcomes compared to induced hypertension. The potential benefits of endovascular treatment for CVS need to be addressed in further studies, searching for a subgroup of patients who may benefit.

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