Effectiveness and Safety of Nicardipine and Labetalol Infusion for Blood Pressure Management in Patients with Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Adherence to Established Blood Pressure Targets and Associated Complications in Patients Presenting with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence exists surrounding systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The 2022 American Heart Association and American Stroke Association guidelines recommend targeting a SBP of 140 mm Hg while maintaining the range of 130-150 mm Hg. The current practice at our health system is to titrate antihypertensives to a SBP goal of < 160 mm Hg, which aligns with previous recommendations. We hypothesized that the prior lack of guidance to a specific SBP target range predisposed patients to hypotension leading to an increased risk of brain and renal adverse events.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter, single health system cohort study included adults admitted to the neurointensive care unit or intermediate unit with acute ICH from June 2019 to June 2021. The primary objective evaluated the frequency of time within SBP range (140-160 mm Hg) in the first 48 h. Secondary and safety end points included the frequency of time above and below the established SBP range, episodes of hypotension (defined as a decrease in SBP < 140 mm Hg prompting discontinuation in antihypertensive[s] or the initiation of vasopressor[s]), the incidence of new brain or renal adverse events within 7 days, and modified Rankin Scale at discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients (59% men; median age 62 years) were included. The majority of ICHs in this cohort were intraparenchymal (70%). Nearly one third were attributed to systemic hypertension (31%). During the first 48 h of admission, the frequency of time spent above, within, and below the target SBP range were 6 h (12%), 16 h (34%), and 26 h (54%), respectively. Hypotension was associated with renal adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-11.44, p = 0.023). A relative SBP reduction > 20% in the first 48 h was associated with renal adverse events (OR 8.99, 95% CI 2.57-35.25, p < 0.001), brain ischemia (OR 22.5, 95% CI 1.92-300.11, p = 0.005), and an increased odd of a modified Rankin Scale of 4-6 at discharge (OR 11.79, 95% CI 2.79-57.02, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with nontraumatic/nonaneurysmal ICH, SBP measurements were observed to be < 140 mm Hg for > 50% of the initial 48 h following admission. Hypotension and relative SBP reduction > 20% were also independent predictors of renal adverse events. SBP reduction > 20% was also an independent predictor of brain ischemia. These data indicate that intensive SBP reduction following ICH predispose patients to secondary organ injury that may impact long-term outcomes. Our data suggest that a more modest lowering of the SBP within 48 h, as recommended in the most recent guidelines, may minimize the risk of further adverse events.

Nicardipine versus Labetalol for Hypertension during Acute Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Current recommendations prescribe either nicardipine or labetalol as the first-line treatment for acute hypertension due to ease of use, availability, and low price. However, it is unclear if these drugs have different effectiveness and safety profiles. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of labetalol and nicardipine in patients with acute stroke.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were electronically searched for the eligible publications from inception until March 2022. All full-text journal papers in English which compared the efficacy of nicardipine with that of labetalol on lowering blood pressure (BP; or treating hypertension) in all subtypes of acute stroke were included. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analyzed using specific statistical methods.

RESULTS

Following the abstract and full-text screening, this meta-analysis included five retrospective cohorts and one prospective pseudorandomized cohort. Nicardipine's effect on time at goal BP was significantly superior to that of labetalol in patients with acute stroke (0.275 standardized mean difference [SMD], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.112-0.438, P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the nicardipine group than that in the labetalol group. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.509 (95% CI: 1.077-2.113, I² = 0.00%, P = 0.757). The quality of included studies was found to be low.

CONCLUSION

More prospective, comparative trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of BP management as well as clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients receiving continuous labetalol and nicardipine infusions.

Comparison of Intravenous Antihypertensives on Blood Pressure Control in Acute Neurovascular Emergencies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Acute blood pressure (BP) management in neurologic patients is paramount. Different neurologic emergencies dictate various BP goals. There remains a lack of literature determining the optimal BP regimen regarding safety and efficacy. The objective of this study was to identify which intravenous antihypertensive is the most effective and safest for acute BP management in neurologic emergencies.

METHODS

Ovid EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials or comparative observational studies that evaluated clevidipine, nicardipine, labetalol, esmolol, or nitroprusside for acute neurologic emergencies were included. Outcomes of interest included mortality, functional outcome, BP variability, time to goal BP, time within goal BP, incidence of hypotension, and need for rescue antihypertensives. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the degree of certainty in the evidence available.

RESULTS

A total of 3878 titles and abstracts were screened, and 183 articles were selected for full-text review. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; however, the significant heterogeneity and very low quality of studies precluded a meta-analysis. All studies included nicardipine. Five studies compared nicardipine with labetalol, three studies compared nicardipine with clevidipine, and two studies compared nicardipine with nitroprusside. Compared with labetalol, nicardipine appears to reach goal BP faster, have less BP variability, and need less rescue antihypertensives. Compared with clevidipine, nicardipine appears to reach goal BP goal slower. Lastly, nicardipine appears to be similar for BP-related outcomes when compared with nitroprusside; however, nitroprusside may be associated with increased mortality. The confidence in the evidence available for all the outcomes was deemed very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the very low quality of evidence, an optimal BP agent for the treatment of patients with neurologic emergencies was unable to be determined. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the most promising agents.

Comparison of Clevidipine and Nicardipine for Acute Blood Pressure Reduction in Hemorrhagic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Intracranial hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) with an intravenous antihypertensive, such as nicardipine or clevidipine, may reduce the risk of hematoma expansion and rebleeding. Previous studies comparing nicardipine and clevidipine in patients with stroke found no significant difference in blood pressure management. The inclusion of patients with ischemic stroke limited those studies because of convoluted results related to faster door-to-needle times. The purpose of this study was to compare clevidipine with nicardipine in time to goal SBP in hemorrhagic stroke.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective observational cohort study evaluated adult hemorrhagic patients with stroke who received clevidipine or nicardipine from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if they had trauma-related hemorrhage, received concurrent continuous intravenous antihypertensives, received the study drug for less than 1-h duration, had a less than 24-h washout period between agents, required any dialysis, were pregnant, or were incarcerated. The primary outcome was time to goal SBP. Secondary outcomes included need for additional antihypertensives, percentage of time at goal SBP, all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, rebleeding, total volume of antihypertensive infusion, hematoma expansion, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and cost of infusion. Safety outcomes included hypotension, severe hypotension, rebound hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, onset of atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

Of 89 patients included in this study, 60 received nicardipine and 29 received clevidipine. There was no significant difference between nicardipine and clevidipine in time to goal SBP in the unmatched cohort (30 vs. 45 min; p = 0.73) or the propensity-score-matched cohort (30 vs. 45 min; p = 0.47). Results were not affected by potential confounders in the multiple linear regression. The nicardipine group had a higher total volume from infusion compared with the clevidipine group (1410 vs. 330 mL; p < 0.0001) but significantly lower cost ($99.6 vs. $497.4; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in need for additional antihypertensives, percentage of time at goal SBP, all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, rebleeding, hematoma expansion, intensive care unit LOS, and hospital LOS. Compared with the clevidipine group, the nicardipine group had less rebound hypertension (40% vs. 75.9%; p = 0.0017) and less bradycardia (23.3% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in hypotension, severe hypotension, tachycardia, and acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with hemorrhagic stroke, nicardipine appeared to have similar efficacy as clevidipine in SBP reduction, with a more likely reduction of rebound hypertension and drug cost. This retrospective study was underpowered, which may limit these implications. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Neurocritical care management of poor-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage: Unjustified nihilism to reasonable optimism

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Historically, overall outcomes for patients with high-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) have been poor. Generally, between physicians, either reluctance to treat, or selectivity in treating such patients has been the paradigm. Recent studies have shown that early and aggressive care leads to significant improvement in survival rates and favorable outcomes of grade V SAH patients. With advancements in both neurocritical care and end-of-life care, non-treatment or selective treatment of grade V SAH patients is rarely justified. Current paradigm shifts towards early and aggressive care in such cases may lead to improved outcomes for many more patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a detailed review of the current literature regarding neurointensive management strategies in high-grade SAH, discussing multiple aspects. We discussed the neurointensive care management protocols for grade V SAH patients.

RESULTS

Acutely, intracranial pressure control is of utmost importance with external ventricular drain placement, sedation, optimization of cerebral perfusion pressure, osmotherapy and hyperventilation, as well as cardiopulmonary support through management of hypotension and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancements of care in SAH patients make it unethical to deny treatment to poor Hunt and Hess grade patients. Early and aggressive treatment results in a significant improvement in survival rate and favorable outcome in such patients.

Comparison of the Effect of Two Different Doses of Labetalol to Induce Controlled Hypotension on Hemodynamic Changes During Spinal Fusion Surgery

Background: Spinal fusion surgery is often associated with heavy bleeding. Labetalol is one of the most effective drugs used to control bleeding in surgery. Objectives: Here, we measured the effect of two therapeutic doses of labetalol on the amount of bleeding. Methods: This is a randomized clinical trial that was performed in 2020-2021 in Al-Zahra hospital in Isfahan, Iran, on patients that were candidates for posterior spinal fusion surgery under general anesthesia. A total number of 64 patients were entered and randomized into two groups, one receiving labetalol at the dose of 2 mg/min and another group at 4 mg/min during surgery. The amount of bleeding in patients, heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation, hypotension or bradycardia, and the mean length of stay in the recovery room were measured and compared between the groups. Results: Extubation time (14 ± 4) and recovery time (76 ± 17) were significantly lower in patients that received labetalol (2 mg/min) compared to another group (21 ± 7 for intubation time and 116 ± 32 for recovery time (P < 0.001 for both items). Patients that received labetalol (4 mg/min) had significantly lower amounts of hemorrhage compared to other group (P = 0.001), and the surgeon's satisfaction was significantly higher in the second group (P = 0.001). The frequency of hypotension and bradycardia during the surgery were significantly higher among patients that received labetalol at the dose of 4 mg/min (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). The patients in the group labetalol at 4 mg/min had also significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure and lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared to the other group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Administration of labetalol at the dose of 4 mg/min had significantly desirable effects on hemodynamics that resulted in reduced bleeding volume and blood pressures compared to labetalol at the dose of 2 mg/min.

Blood Pressure Control in Acute Stroke: Labetalol or Nicardipine?

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of continuous infusion (CIV)-labetalol compared to -nicardipine in controlling blood pressure (BP) in the acute stroke setting.

MATERIALS

Patients were eligible if they had a diagnosis of an acute stroke and were administered either CIV-labetalol or CIV-nicardipine. Study outcomes were assessed within the first 24 h of the antihypertensive infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 3,093 patients were included with 3,008 patients in the CIV-nicardipine group and 85 in the CIV-labetalol group. No significant difference was observed in percent time at goal BP between the nicardipine (82%) and labetalol (85%) groups (p = 0.351). There was also no difference in BP variability between nicardipine (37%) and labetalol (39%) groups (p = 0.433). Labetalol was found to have a shorter time to goal BP as compared to nicardipine (24 min vs. 40 min; p = 0.021). While CIV-nicardipine did have a higher incidence of tachycardia compared to labetalol (17% vs. 4%; p <0.001), the incidence of hypotension (13% vs. 15%; p = 0.620) and bradycardia (24% vs. 22%; p = 0.797) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that CIV-labetalol and CIV-nicardipine are comparable in safety and efficacy in controlling BP for patients with acute stroke.

The role of pericytes in brain disorders: from the periphery to the brain

It is becoming increasingly apparent that disorders of the brain microvasculature contribute to many neurological disorders. In recent years it has become clear that a major player in these events is the capillary pericyte which, in the brain, is now known to control the blood-brain barrier, regulate blood flow, influence immune cell entry and be crucial for angiogenesis. In this review we consider the under-explored possibility that peripheral diseases which affect the microvasculature, such as hypertension, kidney disease and diabetes, produce central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction by mechanisms affecting capillary pericytes within the CNS. We highlight how cellular messengers produced peripherally can act via signalling pathways within CNS pericytes to reshape blood vessels, restrict blood flow or compromise blood-brain barrier function, thus causing neuronal dysfunction. Increased understanding of how renin-angiotensin, Rho-kinase and PDGFRβ signalling affect CNS pericytes may suggest novel therapeutic approaches to reducing the CNS effects of peripheral disorders.

A Narrative Review of Cardiovascular Abnormalities After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

The recommended cardiac workup of patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) includes an electrocardiogram (ECG) and cardiac troponin. However, abnormalities in other cardiovascular domains may occur. We reviewed the literature to examine the spectrum of observed cardiovascular abnormalities in patients with ICH.

METHODS

A narrative review of cardiovascular abnormalities in ECG, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiogram, and hemodynamic domains was conducted on patients with ICH.

RESULTS

We searched PubMed for articles using MeSH Terms "heart," "cardiac," hypertension," "hypotension," "blood pressure," "electro," "echocardio," "troponin," "beta natriuretic peptide," "adverse events," "arrhythmi," "donor," "ICH," "intracerebral hemorrhage." Using Covidence software, 670 articles were screened for title and abstracts, 482 articles for full-text review, and 310 extracted. A total of 161 articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria, and, included in the manuscript. Cardiovascular abnormalities reported after ICH include electrocardiographic abnormalities (56% to 81%) in form of prolonged QT interval (19% to 67%), and ST-T changes (19% to 41%), elevation in cardiac troponin (>0.04 ng/mL), and beta-natriuretic peptide (BNP) (>156.6 pg/mL, up to 78%), echocardiographic abnormalities in form of regional wall motion abnormalities (14%) and reduced ejection fraction. Location and volume of ICH affect the prevalence of cardiovascular abnormalities. Prolonged QT interval, elevated troponin-I, and BNP associated with increased in-hospital mortality after ICH. Blood pressure control after ICH aims to preserve cerebral perfusion pressure and maintain systolic blood pressure between 140 and 179 mm Hg, and avoid intensive blood pressure reduction (110 to 140 mm Hg). The recipients of ICH donor hearts especially those with reduced ejection fraction experience increased early mortality and graft rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

Various cardiovascular abnormalities are common after spontaneous ICH. The workup of patients with spontaneous ICH should involve 12-lead ECG, cardiac troponin-I, as well as BNP, and echocardiogram to evaluate for heart failure. Blood pressure control with preservation of cerebral perfusion pressure is a cornerstone of hemodynamic management after ICH. The perioperative implications of hemodynamic perturbations after ICH warrant urgent further examination.

Acute Management of Hypertension Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is responsible for approximately 15% of strokes annually in the United States, with nearly 1 in 3 of these patients dying without ever leaving the hospital. Because this disproportionate mortality risk has been stagnant for nearly 3 decades, a main area of research has been focused on the optimal strategies to reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes. The acute hypertensive response following ICH has been shown to facilitate ICH expansion and is a strong predictor of mortality. Rapidly reducing blood pressure was once thought to induce cerebral ischemia, though has been found to be safe in certain patient populations. Clinicians must work quickly to determine whether specific patient populations may benefit from acute lowering of systolic blood pressure (SBP) following ICH. This review provides nurses with a summary of the available literature on blood pressure control following ICH. It focuses on intravenous and oral antihypertensive medications available in the United States that may be utilized to acutely lower SBP, as well as medications outside of the antihypertensive class used during the acute setting that may reduce SBP.

Safety of high-dose intravenous labetalol in hypertensive crisis

Purpose

The study assesses the safety of high-dose intravenous (i.v.) labetalol in adults.

Methods

This is a retrospective administrative record review of 28 hospitals in one health care system, from October 2010 through October 2015. Patients were included if they received 300 mg of i.v. labetalol within a 24-hour period. Vital signs, adverse events and cumulative medication doses were obtained for up to 24 hours while on labetalol. Adverse events were defined as any systolic blood pressure measurement less than 90 mm Hg or heart rate less than 60 beats per minute.

Results

We analyzed the records of 188 patients who received i.v. labetalol at higher than the maximum recommended dose of 300 mg. The mean dose of labetalol was 996 mg (range 300 to 4465 mg). The cumulative labetalol dose was not associated with adverse safety outcomes (p = 0.428), although eighty-one patients (44.3%) experienced adverse events. Sixty-six patients (36.5%) developed bradycardia and 34 patients (18.6%) developed hypotension. Only five patients (2.7%) required a rescue agent for refractory adverse events.

Conclusion

A retrospective review of high-dose i.v. labetalol hydrochloride with doses greater than 300 mg in 24 hours observed a high rate of bradycardia and hypotension, but the study found that these events rarely caused clinically significant hemodynamic compromise and was not statistically associated with adverse events.

Blood Pressure Variability and Outcome in Patients with Acute Nonlobar Intracerebral Hemorrhage following Intensive Antihypertensive Treatment

Background:

Blood pressure (BP) variability has been associated with stroke risk. We elucidated the association between systolic BP (SBP) variation and outcomes in patients with nonlobar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) following intensive antihypertensive treatment upfront.

Methods:

We screened consecutive patients with spontaneous ICH who underwent intensive antihypertensive treatments targeting BP <140 mmHg between 2008 and 2016. SBPs were monitored hourly during the acute period (≤7 days after symptom onset) in the intensive care unit. SBP variability was determined in terms of range, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CoV), and mean absolute change (MAC). The primary outcomes included hematoma growth and poor clinical outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score ≥3. The secondary outcome was an ordinal shift in mRS at 3 months.

Results:

A total of 104 individuals (mean age, 63.0 ± 13.5 years; male, 57.7%) were included in this study. In multivariable model, MAC (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–1.21; P = 0.012) rather than the range of SD or CoV, was significantly associated with hematoma growth even after adjusting for mean SBP level. Sixty-eight out of 104 patients (65.4%) had a poor clinical outcome at 3 months. SD and CoV of SBP were significantly associated with a 3-month poor clinical outcome even after adjusting for mean SBP. In addition, in multivariable ordinal logistic models, the MAC of SBP was significantly associated with higher shift of mRS at 3 months (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02–1.15; P = 0.008).

Conclusions:

The MAC of SBP is associated with hematoma growth, and SD and COV are correlated with 3-month poor outcome in patients with supratentorial nonlobar ICH. Therefore, sustained SBP control, with a reduction in SBP variability is essential to reinforce the beneficial effect of intensive antihypertensive treatment.

Continuous-Infusion Labetalol vs Nicardipine for Hypertension Management in Stroke Patients

BACKGROUND

Labetalol and nicardipine are antihypertensives commonly used in the management of elevated blood pressure (BP) following an acute stroke, but there is limited evidence to suggest which agent as a continuous infusion should be used preferentially in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and ease of administration of continuous-infusion labetalol with continuous-infusion nicardipine following an acute stroke.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage included patients if they received either study agent within 24 hours of admission. The primary outcome was percent time spent at goal BP. Secondary outcomes included time to goal BP, the number of dose adjustments, and use of rescue antihypertensives.

RESULTS

The analysis included 99 patients who received labetalol- (n = 34) or nicardipine- (n = 65) continuous infusions. Intracerebral hemorrhage was the most common stroke subset (n = 81) followed by acute ischemic stroke (n = 18). There was no statistical difference in time at goal BP (labetalol 68.0%, nicardipine 67.0%; P = .885), rescue antihypertensive use (labetalol 14.7%, nicardipine 24.6%; P = .2570), time spent 10% above or below mean systolic BP (labetalol 35.5%, nicardipine 33.5%; P = .885), time to goal BP (labetalol 81.4 minutes, nicardipine 56.3 minutes; P = .162), and mean number of dose adjustments (labetalol 5.9, nicardipine 6.9; P = .262).

CONCLUSIONS

Labetalol- and nicardipine-continuous infusions were comparable in the studied safety and efficacy outcomes including time at goal and BP variability. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these safety and efficacy findings and to assess clinical outcomes.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers following intravenous nicardipine administration to lower blood pressure in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH), intravenous nicardipine is primarily used to lower blood pressure (BP). However, there are few studies investigating the role of oral antihypertensives administered after intravenous nicardipine to prevent BP from rising. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may be beneficial in HICH patients not only as antihypertensives but also by lowering plasma catecholamine levels. A prospective randomized study was conducted between January 2015 and March 2016 to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of two ARBs (azilsartan vs. candesartan) following intravenous nicardipine administration on BP reduction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty conscious HICH patients presenting within 6 h of symptom onset were enrolled (15 in each arm). After administering intravenous nicardipine for 24-48 h, the patients were randomized either to the azilsartan (20 mg) arm or to the candesartan (8 mg) arm. Frequency of hematoma expansion, 30-day modified Rankin scale, and temporal profiles of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and plasma norepinephrine/aldosterone were compared.

RESULTS

Substantial hematoma expansion occurred in two (13%) azilsartan patients and in one (7%) candesartan patient (P=1.00). SBPs were maintained at lower than 140±20 mmHg in both arms. Neither SBPs nor plasma norepinephrine/aldosterone levels differed significantly. All 30 patients had 30-day modified Rankin scale scores of 1-2.

CONCLUSION

Administration of ARBs following intravenous nicardipine effectively prevented BP from rising in HICH patients. However, whether BP should be strictly managed after 24 h of symptom onset should be addressed in future studies focusing not only on neurologic but also on cardiovascular and renal functions of HICH patients.

The critical care management of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage: a contemporary review

Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), defined as nontraumatic bleeding into the brain parenchyma, is the second most common subtype of stroke, with 5.3 million cases and over 3 million deaths reported worldwide in 2010. Case fatality is extremely high (reaching approximately 60 % at 1 year post event). Only 20 % of patients who survive are independent within 6 months. Factors such as chronic hypertension, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, and anticoagulation are commonly associated with ICH. Chronic arterial hypertension represents the major risk factor for bleeding. The incidence of hypertension-related ICH is decreasing in some regions due to improvements in the treatment of chronic hypertension. Anticoagulant-related ICH (vitamin K antagonists and the newer oral anticoagulant drugs) represents an increasing cause of ICH, currently accounting for more than 15 % of all cases. Although questions regarding the optimal medical and surgical management of ICH still remain, recent clinical trials examining hemostatic therapy, blood pressure control, and hematoma evacuation have advanced our understanding of ICH management. Timely and aggressive management in the acute phase may mitigate secondary brain injury. The initial management should include: initial medical stabilization; rapid, accurate neuroimaging to establish the diagnosis and elucidate an etiology; standardized neurologic assessment to determine baseline severity; prevention of hematoma expansion (blood pressure management and reversal of coagulopathy); consideration of early surgical intervention; and prevention of secondary brain injury. This review aims to provide a clinical approach for the practicing clinician.

Blood Pressure Management Controversies in Neurocritical Care

Blood pressure (BP) management is essential in neurocritical care settings to ensure adequate cerebral perfusion and prevent secondary brain injury. Despite consensus on the importance of BP monitoring, significant practice variations persist regarding optimal methods for monitoring and treatment of BP values among patients with neurologic injuries. This article provides a summary of research investigating various approaches for BP management in neurocritical care. Evidence-based recommendations, areas for future research, and current technological advancements for BP management are discussed.

Effect of triple-h prophylaxis on global end-diastolic volume and clinical outcomes in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Although prophylactic triple-H therapy has been used in a number of institutions globally to prevent delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of triple-H therapy on hemodynamic variables. Recent studies have suggested an association between low global end-diastolic volume index (GEDI), measured using a transpulmonary thermodilution method, and DCI onset. The current study aimed at assessing the effects of prophylactic triple-H therapy on GEDI.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study included aneurysmal SAH patients admitted to 9 hospitals in Japan. The decision to administer prophylactic triple-H therapy and the management protocols were left to the physician in charge (physician-directed therapy) of each participating institution. The primary endpoints were the changes in the hemodynamic variables as analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Of 178 patients, 62 (34.8 %) received prophylactic triple-H therapy and 116 (65.2 %) did not. DCI was observed in 35 patients (19.7 %), with no significant difference between the two groups [15 (24.2 %) vs. 20 (17.2 %), p = 0.27]. Although a greater amount of fluid (p < 0.001) and a higher mean arterial pressure (p = 0.005) were observed in the triple-H group, no significant difference was observed between the groups in GEDI (p = 0.81) or cardiac output (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-directed prophylactic triple-H administration was not associated with improved clinical outcomes or quantitative hemodynamic indicators for intravascular volume. Further, GEDI-directed intervention studies are warranted to better define management algorithms for SAH patients with the aim of preventing DCI.

External lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

External lumbar drainage is a promising measure for the prevention of delayed aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage-related ischemic complications.

METHODS

Controlled studies evaluating the effects of external lumbar drainage in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were included. Primary outcomes were: new cerebral infarctions and severe disability. Secondary outcomes were: clinical deterioration due to delayed cerebral ischemia, mortality, and the need of definitive ventricular shunting. Results were presented as pooled relative risks, with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 6 controlled studies were included. Pooled relative risks were: new cerebral infarctions, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32-0.72); severe disability, 0.5 (95% CI: 0.29-0.85); delayed cerebral ischemia-related clinical deterioration, 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34-0.63); mortality, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.24-2.06), and need of definitive ventricular shunting, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.51-1.24). Assessment of heterogeneity only revealed statistically significant indexes for the analysis of severe disability (I(2)=70% and P=.01).

CONCLUSION

External lumbar drainage was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the risk of delayed cerebral ischemia-related complications (cerebral infarctions and clinical deterioration), as well as the risk of severe disability; however, it was not translated in a lower mortality. Nevertheless, it is not prudent to provide definitive recommendations at this time because of the qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity among included studies. More randomized controlled trials with more homogeneous outcomes and definitions are needed to clarify its impact in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.