Blood pressure management in patients with intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage

[A favorable outcome of surgical treatment and intensive care in a child admitted in a severe condition in the setting of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (a clinical case and literature review)]

Treatment of children in the acute stage of hemorrhage from cerebral aneurysms is based on clinical cases reported in the literature and descriptions of small series of observations. There are no studies that enable the development of evidence-based approaches to intensive care in treatment of children with aSAH. We present a clinical case with a favorable outcome of complex treatment in a child admitted to the Burdenko Neurosurgical Institute at an extremely severe condition. The efficacy of treatment was based on a timely urgent neurosurgical intervention and adequate intensive therapy in the form of extended neuromonitoring with continuous measurement of intracranial pressure, which enabled using the whole complex of measures for timely management of intracranial hypertension. A favorable outcome (a GOS score IV) after this severe aneurysmal SAH indicates that there are no absolute contraindications for neurosurgical treatment of children with cerebral aneurysms.

Retrospective evaluation of nicardipine versus labetalol for blood pressure control in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines for management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) recommend blood pressure (BP) control, utilizing labetalol or nicardipine, but do not differentiate efficacy between the two agents. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare BP control between labetalol and nicardipine in patients following aSAH.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of SAH treated with labetalol or nicardipine were retrospectively identified. Patients were included if they received more than one bolus dose of labetalol or a nicardipine infusion for greater than 3 h. Patients were excluded if they were <18 years of age, experiencing an ICH, acute ischemic stroke or a TIA. Patients were stratified into two groups (labetalol vs. nicardipine) and data was collected for 72 h. The outcomes compared were time within goal mean arterial pressure (MAP), average MAP/patient, MAP variability, initial response to therapy, and treatment failure. Goal MAP was defined as 70-110 mmHg.

RESULTS

There were 103 patients evaluated (labetalol n = 43; nicardipine n = 60). Demographics and baseline MAP were similar between the two groups. Nicardipine was associated with a longer time within goal MAP (78 ± 24 vs. 58 ± 36 %, p = 0.001) and lower average MAP/patient (93 ± 11 vs. 106 ± 12 mmHg, p < 0.001). There was no difference in MAP variability between the nicardipine and labetalol groups (13 ± 5 mmHg vs. 11 ± 4 mmHg; p = 0.137). Nicardipine led to a more rapid response to therapy (F = 8.1; p = 0.005) and fewer treatment failures (0 vs. 28 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed nicardipine to be associated with superior BP control versus labetalol in aSAH.

A multicenter comparison of outcomes associated with intravenous nitroprusside and nicardipine treatment among patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

No clinical data exist to compare outcomes between patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) treated with different intravenous antihypertensive agents. This study was performed to compare outcomes among patients with ICH who were treated with intravenous infusion of different antihypertensive medications during the first 24 hours after admission.

METHODS

We analyzed one-year data (2005-2006) from the Premier database which is a nationally representative hospital discharge database containing data pertaining to admissions in the United States. We compared discharge outcomes, length of stay, and cost of hospitalization between groups of patients who were treated using either intravenous nicardipine or nitroprusside infusion. Chi-square and ANOVA were used for univariate analysis. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to adjust for baseline risk of mortality between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 12,767 admissions with primary diagnosis of ICH were identified. Nicardipine was administered in 926 patients (7.3%) and nitroprusside was administered in 530 (4.3%) patients. There was no difference in baseline disease severity or risk of mortality among patients who were administered nicardipine or nitroprusside. After adjustment for baseline risk of mortality, the risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.3-2.2) was higher among patients treated with nitroprusside compared with nicardipine. The risk of in-hospital mortality was also higher after adjustment for baseline risk of mortality and hospital characteristics in patients treated with nitroprusside (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1). After exclusion of patients who died during hospitalization, there was no difference in length of stay and total hospital cost in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Use of nicardipine compared with nitroprusside infusion during the first 24 h after ICH may be associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality without any increase in the hospitalization cost or length of stay.