Experience with nimodipine in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

Pharmacological Prevention of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Causes of morbidity and mortality following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) include early brain injury and delayed neurologic deterioration, which may result from delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). Complex pathophysiological mechanisms underlie DCI, which often includes angiographic vasospasm (aVSP) of cerebral arteries.

METHODS

Despite the study of many pharmacological therapies for the prevention of DCI in aSAH, nimodipine-a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker-remains the only drug recommended universally in this patient population. A common theme in the research of preventative therapies is the use of promising drugs that have been shown to reduce the occurrence of aVSP but ultimately did not improve functional outcomes in large, randomized studies. An example of this is the endothelin antagonist clazosentan, although this agent was recently approved in Japan.

RESULTS

The use of the only approved drug, nimodipine, is limited in practice by hypotension. The administration of nimodipine and its counterpart nicardipine by alternative routes, such as intrathecally or formulated as prolonged release implants, continues to be a rational area of study. Additional agents approved in other parts of the world include fasudil and tirilazad.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a brief overview of agents currently being studied for prevention of aVSP and DCI after aSAH. Future studies may need to identify subpopulations of patients who can benefit from these drugs and perhaps redefine acceptable outcomes to demonstrate impact.

Guidelines for the Neurocritical Care Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

The neurointensive care management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is one of the most critical components contributing to short-term and long-term patient outcomes. Previous recommendations for the medical management of aSAH comprehensively summarized the evidence based on consensus conference held in 2011. In this report, we provide updated recommendations based on appraisal of the literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

METHODS

The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome (PICO) questions relevant to the medical management of aSAH were prioritized by consensus from the panel members. The panel used a custom-designed survey instrument to prioritize clinically relevant outcomes specific to each PICO question. To be included, the study design qualifying criteria were as follows: prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational studies, case-control studies, case series with a sample larger than 20 patients, meta-analyses, restricted to human study participants. Panel members first screened titles and abstracts, and subsequently full text review of selected reports. Data were abstracted in duplicate from reports meeting inclusion criteria. Panelists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Risk of Bias tool for assessment of RCTs and the "Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions" tool for assessment of observational studies. The summary of the evidence for each PICO was presented to the full panel, and then the panel voted on the recommendations.

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 15,107 unique publications, and 74 were included for data abstraction. Several RCTs were conducted to test pharmacological interventions, and we found that the quality of evidence for nonpharmacological questions was consistently poor. Five PICO questions were supported by strong recommendations, one PICO question was supported by conditional recommendations, and six PICO questions did not have sufficient evidence to provide a recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide recommendations for or against interventions proven to be effective, ineffective, or harmful in the medical management of patients with aSAH based on a rigorous review of the available literature. They also serve to highlight gaps in knowledge that should guide future research priorities. Despite improvements in the outcomes of patients with aSAH over time, many important clinical questions remain unanswered.

Efficacy of prophylactic nimodipine for delayed ischemic deficit after subarachnoid hemorrhage: a metaanalysis

The authors report findings from a metaanalysis of all published randomized trials of prophylactic nimodipine used in patients who have experienced subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Seven trials were included with a total of 1202 patients suitable for evaluation. Eight outcome measures were examined, including good versus other outcome, good or fair outcome versus other outcome, overall mortality, deficit and/or death attributed to vasospasm, infarction rate as judged by computerized tomography (CT), and deficit and/or death from rebleeding. Nimodipine improved outcome according to all measures examined. The odds of good and of good plus fair outcomes were improved by ratios of 1.86:1 and 1.67:1, respectively, for nimodipine versus control(p<0.005 for both measures). The odds of deficit and/or mortality attributed to vasospasm and CT-assessed infarction rate were reduced by ratios of 0.46:1 to 0.58:1 in the nimodipine group (p<0.008 for all measures). Overall mortality was slightly reduced in the nimodipine group, but the trend was not statistically significant. The rebleeding rate was not increased by nimodipine. A metaregression yielded findings indicating that the treatment effect of nimodipine in individual trials was positively correlated with the severity of SAH in enrolled patients. Although the majority of individual trials examined did not have statistically significant results at the p<0.01 level according to most outcome measures, the metaanalyses confirmed the significant efficacy of prophylactic nimodipine in improving outcome after SAH under the conditions used in these trials.

[Pharmacological treatment of vasospasm in subarachnoid hemorrhage]

Pharmacological treatment of vasospasm in subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) is founded on prevention and treatment of arterial narrowing and delayed ischaemic deficits. Safety and efficacy of different agents have been studied and trials classified according to the level of evidence proposed by the "Stroke Council" of the American Heart Association. Early intracisternal fibrinolysis can prevent vasospasm (level III to V of evidence, grade C). Pharmacological treatment is based on few drugs. Nimodipine reduces poor outcome related to vasospasm, but does not affect angiographic vessel caliber (level of evidence I and II, grade A). Its use is strongly recommended. Nicardipine decreases symptomatic and angiographic vasospasm, but does not affect outcome (level of evidence I to V, grade B). Tirilazad associated with nimodipine prevents delayed ischaemic deficits due to vasospasm and improves outcome in male patients. Intra-arterial infusion of papaverine associated with transluminal angioplasty can improve symptomatic vasospasm, resistant to conventional therapy (level of evidence IV to V, grade C). Pharmacological treatment of vasospasm associated with specific management founded on pathophysiology of SAH has improved patients outcome.