48 research outputs found

    Decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for spontaneous severe deep supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage:a randomised controlled clinical trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether decompressive craniectomy improves clinical outcome for people with spontaneous severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The SWITCH trial aimed to assess whether decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment in these patients improves outcome at 6 months compared to best medical treatment alone.METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded trial conducted in 42 stroke centres in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, adults (18-75 years) with a severe intracerebral haemorrhage involving the basal ganglia or thalamus were randomly assigned to receive either decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment or best medical treatment alone. The primary outcome was a score of 5-6 on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 180 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02258919, and is completed.FINDINGS: SWITCH had to be stopped early due to lack of funding. Between Oct 6, 2014, and April 4, 2023, 201 individuals were randomly assigned and 197 gave delayed informed consent (96 decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment, 101 best medical treatment). 63 (32%) were women and 134 (68%) men, the median age was 61 years (IQR 51-68), and the median haematoma volume 57 mL (IQR 44-74). 42 (44%) of 95 participants assigned to decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 55 (58%) assigned to best medical treatment alone had an mRS of 5-6 at 180 days (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·59 to 1·01, adjusted risk difference [aRD] -13%, 95% CI -26 to 0, p=0·057). In the per-protocol analysis, 36 (47%) of 77 participants in the decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment group and 44 (60%) of 73 in the best medical treatment alone group had an mRS of 5-6 (aRR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58 to 1·00, aRD -15%, 95% CI -28 to 0). Severe adverse events occurred in 42 (41%) of 103 participants receiving decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 41 (44%) of 94 receiving best medical treatment.INTERPRETATION: SWITCH provides weak evidence that decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment might be superior to best medical treatment alone in people with severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The results do not apply to intracerebral haemorrhage in other locations, and survival is associated with severe disability in both groups.FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Inselspital Stiftung, and Boehringer Ingelheim.</p

    The authors reply

    No full text

    Is Helium Eclipsing Current Thromboembolic Stroke Therapy?

    No full text

    Secondary Ischemia Assessment in Murine and Rat Preclinical Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Models: A Systematic Review

    No full text
    Background Delayed cerebral ischemia represents a significant contributor to death and disability following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Although preclinical models have shown promising results, clinical trials have consistently failed to replicate the success of therapeutic strategies. The lack of standardized experimental setups and outcome assessments, particularly regarding secondary vasospastic/ischemic events, may be partly responsible for the translational failure. The study aims to delineate the procedural characteristics and assessment modalities of secondary vasospastic and ischemic events, serving as surrogates for clinically relevant delayed cerebral ischemia, in recent rat and murine subarachnoid hemorrhage models. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic review of rat and murine in vivo subarachnoid hemorrhage studies (published: 2016–2020) using delayed cerebral ischemia/vasospasm as outcome parameters. Our analysis included 102 eligible studies. In murine studies (n=30), the endovascular perforation model was predominantly used, while rat studies primarily employed intracisternal blood injection to mimic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Particularly, the injection models exhibited considerable variation in injection volume, rate, and cerebrospinal fluid withdrawal. Peri‐interventional monitoring was generally inadequately reported across all models, with body temperature and blood pressure being the most frequently documented parameters (62% and 34%, respectively). Vasospastic events were mainly assessed through microscopy of large cerebral arteries. In 90% of the rat and 86% of the murine studies, only male animals were used. Conclusions Our study underscores the substantial heterogeneity in procedural characteristics and outcome assessments of experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage research. To address these challenges, drafting guidelines for standardization and ensuring rigorous control of methodological and experimental quality by funders and journals are essential. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42022337279
    corecore