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

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

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

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

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

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

Inversion therapy in patients with pure single level lumbar discogenic disease: a pilot randomized trial

Purpose: Backache and sciatica due to protuberant disc disease is a major cause of lost working days and health expenditure. Surgery is a well-established option in the management flowchart. There is no strong evidence proving that traction for sciatica is effective. We report a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial comparing inversion traction and physiotherapy with standard physiotherapy alone in patients awaiting lumbar disc surgery. This study sought to study the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial on the effect of inversion therapy in patients with single level lumbar discogenic disease, who had been listed for surgery. Methods: This was a single centre prospective randomized controlled trial undertaken at the Regional Neurosciences Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. It was a prospective randomized controlled trial where patients awaiting surgery for pure lumbar discogenic disease within the ambit of the prestated inclusion/exclusion criteria were allocated to either physiotherapy or physiotherapy and intermittent traction with an inversion device. Post-treatment assessment made by blinded observers at 6 weeks for various outcome measures included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Score, Short Form 36 (SF 36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance and the need for surgery. Avoidance of surgery was considered a treatment success. Results: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and 24 were randomized [13 to inversion + physiotherapy and 11 to physiotherapy alone (control)]. Surgery was avoided in 10 patients (76.9%) in the inversion group, whereas it was averted in only two patients (22.2%) in the control group. Cancellation of the proposed operation was a clinical decision based on the same criteria by which the patient was listed for surgery initially. There were no significant differences in the RMDQ, SF 36, ODI, VAS or MRI results between the two groups. Conclusion: Intermittent traction with an inversion device resulted in a significant reduction in the need for surgery. A larger multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial is justified in patients with sciatica due to single level lumbar disc protrusions. Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638288.2011.64723

Characteristics of traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage: An assessment of screening logs from the STITCH(Trauma) Trial

<p><i>Introduction</i>. In undertaking international neurosurgical trials it is useful to understand international patient demographics and potential patient populations that study results will apply to. The STITCH(Trauma) trial included 59 centres from 20 countries, which were requested to screen all patients with traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage. This paper reviews these data. <i>Materials and methods</i>. Demographic, clinical and exclusion reason data were analysed. Comparisons were made between patients who were included in the trial and patients who were potentially eligible (but not included in the trial) and patients who were not potentially eligible. <i>Results</i>. Screening evidence was returned for 1735 patients, 11% of these may potentially have been eligible, of whom 52% were not included because consent could not be gained. By country, median age per centre ranged from 26 years (Egypt) to 67 years (Germany), median time from injury to screening ranged from 5 h (Germany and Nepal) to 16 h (India), median intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) volume ranged from 5ml (Germany) to 30ml (China), the proportion of male patients ranged from 56% (Egypt) to 91% (Canada) and the proportion of patients with both pupils reactive ranged from 68% (China) to 98% (Nepal). The most common exclusion reasons were ICH volume < 10ml (49%) and presence of subdural haemorrhage/extradural haemorrhage or SDH/EDH requiring surgery (20%). <i>Conclusion</i>. Data presented here including international patient demographics and reasons for patient ineligibility will be useful for future traumatic ICH studies.</p

Acute care bundles should be used for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage: An expert consensus statement

PURPOSE Intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is the most devastating form of stroke and a major cause of disability. Clinical trials of individual therapies have failed to definitively establish a specific beneficial treatment. However, clinical trials of introducing care bundles, with multiple therapies provided in parallel, appear to clearly reduce morbidity and mortality. Currently, not enough patients receive these interventions in the acute phase. METHODS We convened an expert group to discuss best practices in ICH and to develop recommendations for bundled care that can be delivered in all settings that treat acute ICH, with a focus on European healthcare systems. FINDINGS In this consensus paper, we argue for widespread implementation of formalised care bundles in ICH, including specific metrics for time to treatment and criteria for the consideration of neurosurgical therapy. DISCUSSION There is an extraordinary opportunity to improve clinical care and clinical outcomes in this devastating disease. Substantial evidence already exists for a range of therapies that can and should be implemented now

Swiss trial of decompressive craniectomy versus best medical treatment of spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage (SWITCH): an international, multicentre, randomised-controlled, two-arm, assessor-blinded trial.

RATIONALE Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is beneficial in people with malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Whether DC improves outcome in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is unknown. AIM To determine whether DC without haematoma evacuation plus best medical treatment (BMT) in people with ICH decreases the risk of death or dependence at 6 months compared to BMT alone. METHODS AND DESIGN SWITCH is an international, multicentre, randomised (1:1), two-arm, open-label, assessor-blinded trial. Key inclusion criteria are age ⩽75 years, stroke due to basal ganglia or thalamic ICH that may extend into cerebral lobes, ventricles or subarachnoid space, Glasgow coma scale of 8-13, NIHSS score of 10-30 and ICH volume of 30-100 mL. Randomisation must be performed <66 h after onset and DC <6 h after randomisation. Both groups will receive BMT. Participants randomised to the treatment group will receive DC of at least 12 cm in diameter according to institutional standards. SAMPLE SIZE A sample of 300 participants randomised 1:1 to DC plus BMT versus BMT alone provides over 85% power at a two-sided alpha-level of 0.05 to detect a relative risk reduction of 33% using a chi-squared test. OUTCOMES The primary outcome is the composite of death or dependence, defined as modified Rankin scale score 5-6 at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include death, functional status, quality of life and complications at 180 days and 12 months. DISCUSSION SWITCH will inform physicians about the outcomes of DC plus BMT in people with spontaneous deep ICH, compared to BMT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02258919

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

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

sj-pdf-1-eso-10.1177_23969873241231047 – Supplemental material for Swiss trial of decompressive craniectomy versus best medical treatment of spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage (SWITCH): an international, multicentre, randomised-controlled, two-arm, assessor-blinded trial

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-eso-10.1177_23969873241231047 for Swiss trial of decompressive craniectomy versus best medical treatment of spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage (SWITCH): an international, multicentre, randomised-controlled, two-arm, assessor-blinded trial by Urs Fischer, Christian Fung, Seraina Beyeler, Lukas Bütikofer, Werner Z’Graggen, Florian Ringel, Jan Gralla, Karl Schaller, Nikolaus Plesnila, Daniel Strbian, Marcel Arnold, Werner Hacke, Peter Jüni, Alexander David Mendelow, Christian Stapf, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Jenny Bressan, Stefanie Lerch, Claudio L. A. Bassetti, Heinrich P. Mattle, Andreas Raabe and Jürgen Beck in European Stroke Journal</p