Clinical and experimental aspects of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite advances in care and aneurysm treatment strategies. Cerebral vasospasm continues to be a major source of clinical worsening in patients. We intended to review the clinical and experimental aspects of aSAH and identify strategies that are being evaluated for the treatment of vasospasm. A literature review on aSAH and cerebral vasospasm was performed. Available treatments for aSAH continue to expand as research continues to identify new therapeutic targets. Oral nimodipine is the primary medication used in practice given its neuroprotective properties. Transluminal balloon angioplasty is widely utilized in patients with symptomatic vasospasm and ischemia. Prophylactic “triple‐H” therapy, clazosentan, and intraarterial papaverine have fallen out of practice. Trials have not shown strong evidence supporting magnesium or statins. Other calcium channel blockers, milrinone, tirilazad, fasudil, cilostazol, albumin, eicosapentaenoic acid, erythropoietin, corticosteroids, minocycline, deferoxamine, intrathecal thrombolytics, need to be further investigated. Many of the current experimental drugs may have significant roles in the treatment algorithm, and further clinical trials are needed. There is growing evidence supporting that early brain injury in aSAH may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, and this needs to be explored further.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151874/1/cns13222_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151874/2/cns13222.pd

Experience With Ventriculoperitoneal and Lumboperitoneal Shunting for the Treatment of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Single Institution Series

CSF shunting is among the most widely utilized interventions in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). Ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) and lumboperitoneal shunting (LPS) are 2 possible treatment modalities. To evaluate and compare complications, malfunction, infection, and revision rates associated with VPS compared to LPS. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify baseline and treatment characteristics for patients diagnosed with IIH treated with VPS or LPS. A total of 163 patients treated with either VPS (74.2%) or LPS (25.8%) were identified. The mean follow-up was 35 mo. Shunt revision was required in 40.9% of patients. There was a nonsignificant higher rate of revision with LPS (52.4%) than VPS (36.4%, P = .07). In multivariate analysis, increasing patient age was associated with higher odds of shunt revision (P = .04). LPS had higher odds of shunt revision, yet this association was not significant (P = .06). Shunt malfunction was the main indication for revision occurring in 32.7%, with a significantly higher rate with LPS than VPS (P = .03). In total, 15 patients had shunt infection (9.4% VPS vs 12.2% LPS P = .50). The only significant predictor of procedural infection was the increasing number of revisions (P = .02). The incidence of shunt revision was 40.9%, with increasing patient age as the sole predictor of shunt revision. The incidence of shunt malfunction was significantly higher in patients undergoing LPS, while there was no significant difference in the incidence of shunt infection between the 2 modalities

Effect of Shunting on Visual Outcomes and Headache in Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Visual dysfunction and headache are major symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). We aimed to evaluate the improvement of these symptoms in patients who underwent ventriculoperitoneal (VPS) and lumboperitoneal (LPS) shunting. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify baseline and treatment characteristics for patients diagnosed with IIH over 10 years. Visual outcomes and headache were evaluated at the latest follow-up post shunting. We included 163 patients with a mean age of 32.6 years. Most patients (74.2%) underwent VPS versus 25.8% of patients who received LPS. After a mean follow-up duration of 35 months, there was a 58.3% decrease in patients reporting headache (P = 0.006), an 87.7% decrease in papilledema (P = 0.1), a 100% resolution of diplopia with VPS or LPS, and an 88.5% decrease in transient visual obscurations (P = 1). In the worse eye, improved visual acuity (VA) occurred in 53.7% of eyes (P = 1), was stable in 16.4%, and worsened in 29.8%. The mean LogMAR VA was improved by 0.06 LogMAR (20/68) in the worse eye (P = 0.97) and 0.08 LogMAR (20/31) in the better eye (P = 0.7). The visual function that impairs daily activity was decreased by 55.4% (P = 0.08). Patients shunted within 1 month of presentation had a significantly higher rate of headache (P = 0.04) and VA improvement (P < 0.001). VPS and LPS are effective in improving visual symptoms and headache in patients with IIH

Pennsylvania comprehensive stroke center collaborative: Statement on the recently updated IV rt-PA prescriber information for acute ischemic stroke.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, the FDA guidelines regarding the eligibility of patients with acute ischemic stroke to receive IV rt-PA have been modified and are not in complete accord with the latest AHA/ASA guidelines. The resultant differences may result in discrepancies in patient selection for intravenous thrombolysis. METHODS: Several comprehensive stroke centers in the state of Pennsylvania have undertaken a collaborative effort to clarify and unify our own recommendations regarding how to reconcile these different guidelines. RESULTS: Seizure at onset of stroke, small previous strokes that are subacute or chronic, multilobar infarct involving more than one third of the middle cerebral artery territory on CT scan, hypoglycemia, minor or rapidly improving symptoms should not be considered as contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis. It is recommended to follow the AHA/ASA guidelines regarding blood pressure management and bleeding diathesis. Patients receiving factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors within the preceding 48h should be excluded from receiving IV rt-PA. CT angiography is effective in identifying candidates for endovascular therapy. Consultation with and/or transfer to a comprehensive stroke center should be an option where indicated. Patients should receive IV rt-PA up to 4.5h after the onset of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The process of identifying patients who will benefit the most from IV rt-PA is still evolving. Considering the rapidity with which patients need to be evaluated and treated, it remains imperative that systems of care adopt protocols to quickly gather the necessary data and have access to expert consultation as necessary to facilitate best practices