首页|Continuous intra-arterial nimodipine infusion as rescue treatment of severe refractory cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage
Continuous intra-arterial nimodipine infusion as rescue treatment of severe refractory cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NSTL
Elsevier
? 2021 Elsevier LtdSevere refractory cerebral vasospasm (CV) is a major cause of disability and death in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). One rescue therapy in selected patients is intra-arterial nimodipine, either given as a single shot or as continuous infusion. To evaluate treatment efficacy, we analyzed outcome factors such as the incidence of craniectomy, ventriculo-peritonial (VP) shunting, and tracheotomy after intra-arterial nimodipine infusion. We retrospectively analyzed the rates of cerebral infarction, decompressive craniectomy, VP shunting, and tracheotomy in patients with severe CV after SAH. Three different patient groups were compared: group 1 had only been treated with oral nimodipine and hypervolemic hypertensive therapy (HHT) (2006–2010), group 2 with a single shot of intra-arterial nimodipine (SSN) in addition to oral conservative treatment (2006–2010), and group 3 with continuous intra-arterial nimodipine (CIAN) (2011–2017). The incidence of cerebral infarction was significantly lower in CIAN group (p = 0.005) than in conservative and SSN group. The indication for consecutive decompressive craniectomy was significantly lower in CIAN group in comparison with the conservative group (p = 0.018). The rates of VP shunting and tracheotomy were significantly higher in the CIAN group than in the conservative group (p = 0.028 for VP, and p = 0.003 for tracheotomy). The significantly lower rate of craniectomy in the CIAN group was most probably attributable to the significantly lower rate of CV-induced infarction. The higher rate of tracheotomy reflects more extensive sedation and the need of longer stays on the intensive care unit. Thus, the effect on long-term neurological outcome and quality of life has to be evaluated separately.
NSTL
Elsevier
