ED BP Management for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

The impact of systolic blood pressure reduction on aneurysm re-bleeding in subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preventing early aneurysm rebleeding is crucial in the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) has been proposed as a potential strategy, but the evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if a specific SBP target could reduce the risk of aneurysm rebleeding prior to treatment.

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing SBP between SAH patients with and without aneurysm rebleeding before surgical treatment. Data on SBP values, patient characteristics, and rebleeding events were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to pool mean SBP differences and odds ratios (ORs) for rebleeding at different SBP cut-offs.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the systematic review. Pooled data from the included studies showed that the mean SBP was higher in the rebleeding group (mean difference 5.89, 95 % CI 1.94 to 9.85). SBP ≤160 mmHg was associated with lower rebleeding risk (OR 0.30, 95 % CI 0.14 to 0.65). However, substantial heterogeneity and limitations in study designs and definitions were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that SAH patients with rebleeding may present with higher SBP. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations. Future prospective studies with standardized definitions and comprehensive data collection are needed to elucidate the complex relationship between blood pressure dynamics and rebleeding risk in SAH.

Comparison of the Effects of Blood Pressure Parameters on Rebleeding and Outcomes in Unsecured Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) has been linked to preprocedural rebleeding risk and poor outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study seeks to compare the effects of SBP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) on rebleeding and functional outcomes in aSAH patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a prospectively collected cohort of consecutive patients with aSAH admitted to an academic center in 2016-2023. Binary regression analysis was used to determine the association between BP parameters and outcomes including rebleeding and poor outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale 4-6 at 3 months postdischarge.

RESULTS

The cohort included 324 patients (mean age 57 years [standard deviation 13.4], 61% female). Symptomatic rebleeding occurred in 34 patients (11%). Higher BP measurements were recorded in patients with rebleeding and poor outcome, however, only MAP met statistical significance for rebleeding (odds ratio {OR} 1.02 for 1 mmHg increase in MAP, 95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.001-1.03, P = 0.043; OR 1 per 1 mmHg increase in SBP, 95% CI 0.99-1.01; P = 0.06)) and for poor outcome (OR 1.01 for 1 mmHg increase in MAP, 95% CI: 1.002-1.025, P = 0.025; OR 1 for 1 mmHg increase in SBP, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, P = 0.23) independent of other predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

MAP may appear to be slightly better correlated with rebleeding and poor outcomes in unsecured aSAH compared to SBP. Larger prospective studies are needed to identify and mitigate risk factors for rebleeding and poor outcome in aSAH patients.

Comparison of the Effects of Hydralazine and Labetalol on Intracranial Pressure When Used for Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study

Background Recommendations on optimal agents to manage blood pressure (BP) in patients with an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are lacking. A case series suggests that hydralazine can cause intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation in an ICH. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of intravenous (IV) hydralazine to IV labetalol on ICP in patients with ICH. Materials and methods A retrospective chart review from September 2015 to September 2021 on adults admitted to a level I trauma center with ICH, requiring an external ventricular drain or ICP monitor, and pharmacologic intervention with IV hydralazine or IV labetalol. ICP measurements and clinical interventions 0-80 minutes prior to and after medication administration were compared. Data points were excluded if multiple antihypertensive agents were administered. Results A total of 27 patients were included (three received only hydralazine, 13 only labetalol, and 11 both). Twenty-seven doses of hydralazine and 115 doses of labetalol were compared. There was no significant difference in mean ICP 0-80 minutes following hydralazine and labetalol administration (p = 0.283). Of the hydralazine doses, 29.6% received intervention for elevated ICP, while 25.2% of labetalol doses received intervention (p = 0.633). Hydralazine patients received m = 0.56 interventions for ICP, and labetalol patients received m = 0.36 interventions (p = 0.223). Of the patients that required intervention for ICP management, hydralazine patients required m = 1.88 interventions, while labetalol patients required m = 1.41 interventions (p = 0.115).  Conclusion There was no significant difference in mean ICP at 0-80 minutes following administration of hydralazine or labetalol. There was also no significant difference in interventions required for elevated ICP management between groups. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Hypertensive Emergency: Parenteral Antihypertensives and Population Data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Review parenteral therapeutic choices in treatment of hypertensive crises by mechanism of action and summarize recent literature on the management of hypertensive crises.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data have documented the safety and efficacy of labetalol and nicardipine in treatment of hypertensive crises as well as characterized the hypertensive emergency population to a much greater extent. Based on recent data, hypertensive emergencies are seen in 0.5% of all emergency room visits. Ischemic stroke and heart failure/pulmonary edema are the most common forms of organ damage seen in hypertensive emergencies. There are many therapeutic choices in treatment of hypertensive crises with varied mechanisms of action. Large randomized, controlled trial evidence is lacking in this therapeutic area; however, recent data have documented the safety and efficacy of labetalol and nicardipine.