4.7 Article

Fever in subarachnoid hemorrhage - Relationship to vasospasm and outcome

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 56, 期 10, 页码 1299-1304

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.56.10.1299

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [5 RO1 NS35284, 5 P50 NS108288-22, R01-NS28371] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the causes of fever in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and examine its relationship to outcome. Background: Fever adversely affects outcome in stroke. Patients with SAH are at risk for cerebral ischemia due to vasospasm (VSP). In these patients, fever may he both caused by, and potentiate, VSP-mediated brain injury. Methods: The authors prospectively studied patients admitted to a neurologic intensive care unit with nontraumatic SAH, documenting Hunt-Hess grade, Fisher group, Glasgow Coma Score, bacterial culture data, daily transcranial Doppler mean velocities, and maximum daily temperatures. Patients were classified as febrile (temperature above 38.3 degreesC for at least 2 consecutive days) or afebrile (no fever or isolated episodes of temperature above 38.3 degreesC). VSP was verified by either transcranial Doppler or angiographic criteria. Rankin scale scores on discharge were dichotomized into good (0 to 2) or poor (3 to 6) outcomes. Results: Ninety-two consecutive patients were studied. Thirty-eight patients were classified as febrile. No source for infection was found in 10 of 38 (26%) patients. In a multivariate analysis, three variables independently predicted fever occurrence: ventriculostomy (OR, 8.5 [CI, 2.4 to 29.7]), symptomatic VSP (OR, 5.0 [CI, 1.03 to 24.5]), and older age (OR, 1.75 per 10 years [CI, 1.02 to 3.0]). Poor outcome was I elated to fever (OR, 1.4 per each day febrile [CI, 1.1 to 1.88]), older age (OR, 1.64 per 10 years [CI, 1.04 to 2.58]), and intubation (OR, 21.8 [CI, 5.6 to 84.5]). Conclusion: Fever in SAH is associated with vasospasm and poor outcome independently of hemorrhage severity or presence of infection.

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