No abstract

SummaryBackgroundThe balance of risk and benefit from early neurosurgical intervention for conscious patients with superficial lobar intracerebral haemorrhage of 10–100 mL and no intraventricular haemorrhage admitted within 48 h of ictus is unclear. We therefore tested the hypothesis that early surgery compared with initial conservative treatment could improve outcome in these patients.MethodsIn this international, parallel-group trial undertaken in 78 centres in 27 countries, we compared early surgical haematoma evacuation within 12 h of randomisation plus medical treatment with initial medical treatment alone (later evacuation was allowed if judged necessary). An automatic telephone and internet-based randomisation service was used to assign patients to surgery and initial conservative treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The trial was not masked. The primary outcome was a prognosis-based dichotomised (favourable or unfavourable) outcome of the 8 point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) obtained by questionnaires posted to patients at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN22153967.Findings307 of 601 patients were randomly assigned to early surgery and 294 to initial conservative treatment; 298 and 291 were followed up at 6 months, respectively; and 297 and 286 were included in the analysis, respectively. 174 (59%) of 297 patients in the early surgery group had an unfavourable outcome versus 178 (62%) of 286 patients in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI −4·3 to 11·6], odds ratio 0·86 [0·62 to 1·20]; p=0·367).InterpretationThe STICH II results confirm that early surgery does not increase the rate of death or disability at 6 months and might have a small but clinically relevant survival advantage for patients with spontaneous superficial intracerebral haemorrhage without intraventricular haemorrhage.FundingUK Medical Research Council.

Enlighten-Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE III): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 3 trial with blinded endpoint

SUMMARY Background Craniotomy, when evaluated in trials, does not improve outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis is safe and can achieve a good functional outcome by removing clot is unknown. We investigated safety and efficacy of alteplase with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. Methods MISTIE was an international, randomized, open-label study and was done in 26 hospitals in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany. Patients (aged 18–80 years), with non-traumatic (spontaneous) ICH ≥20 mL were randomly allocated, centrally, to medical care or image-guided MIS plus rt-PA (0.3 mg or 1.0 mg every 8 hours for up to 9 doses) to remove clot using surgical aspiration followed with alteplase clot irrigation. The primary efficacy outcome was the adjusted dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–3 vs 4–6 assessed at day 180 after symptom onset. Analysis was by intention to treat. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00224770). Findings Between February 2, 2006 and April 8, 2013, 96 subjects were randomized and completed follow-up: 54 received treatment and 42 medical care. Primary safety outcomes: mortality, symptomatic bleeding, brain infections, as well as withdrawal of care, did not differ between groups. Asymptomatic hemorrhages were more common in the surgical group (3 (7%) vs. 12 (22%) p= 0.05) producing a difference of 15.1% (95% CI: 1.5% to 28.6%). The estimated absolute benefit, i.e., the unadjusted difference in observed proportions of all subjects with mRS 0–3 (33% vs 21%) at 180 days comparing MISPA vs. medical control, is 0.109 [95%CI: −0.088, 0.294; p=0.26], and is 0.162 [95%CI: 0.003, 0.323; p=0.05] after adjustment for potential imbalances in baseline severity between study arms (primary efficacy outcome). Interpretation MIS+rt-PA appears safe with an apparent advantage of better functional outcome at 180 days. Increased asymptomatic bleeding is a major cautionary finding. The MISTIE trial results, if replicable, could produce a meaningful functional benefit adding surgical management as a therapeutic strategy for ICH. Funding National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, Genentech, and Codman.

Summary Background Intraventricular haemorrhage is a subtype of intracerebral haemorrhage, with 50% mortality and serious disability for survivors. We aimed to test whether attempting to remove intraventricular haemorrhage with alteplase versus saline irrigation improved functional outcome. Methods In this randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multiregional trial (CLEAR III), participants with a routinely placed extraventricular drain, in the intensive care unit with stable, non-traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage volume less than 30 mL, intraventricular haemorrhage obstructing the 3rd or 4th ventricles, and no underlying pathology were adaptively randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based system to receive up to 12 doses, 8 h apart of 1 mg of alteplase or 0·9% saline via the extraventricular drain. The treating physician, clinical research staff, and participants were masked to treatment assignment. CT scans were obtained every 24 h throughout dosing. The primary efficacy outcome was good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 or less at 180 days per central adjudication by blinded evaluators. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00784134. Findings Between Sept 18, 2009, and Jan 13, 2015, 500 patients were randomised: 249 to the alteplase group and 251 to the saline group. 180-day follow-up data were available for analysis from 246 of 249 participants in the alteplase group and 245 of 251 participants in the placebo group. The primary efficacy outcome was similar in each group (good outcome in alteplase group 48% vs saline 45%; risk ratio [RR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·88–1·28; p=0–554]). A difference of 3·5% (RR 1·08 [95% CI 0·90–1·29], p=0–420) was found after adjustment for intraventricular haemorrhage size and thalamic intracerebral haemorrhage. At 180 days, the treatment group had lower case fatality (46 [18%] vs saline 73 [29%], hazard ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·41–0·86], p=0–006), but a greater proportion with mRS 5 (42 [17%] vs 21 [9%]; RR 1·99 [95% CI 1·22–3·26], p=0–007). Ventriculitis (17 [7%] alteplase vs 31 [12%] saline; RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·31–0·97], p=0–048) and serious adverse events (114 [46%] alteplase vs 151 [60%] saline; RR 0·76 [95% CI 0·64–0·90], p=0–002) were less frequent with alteplase treatment. Symptomatic bleeding (six [2%] in the alteplase group vs five [2%] in the saline group; RR 1·21 [95% CI 0·37–3·91], p=0–771) was similar. Interpretation In patients with intraventricular haemorrhage and a routine extraventricular drain, irrigation with alteplase did not substantially improve functional outcomes at the mRS 3 cutoff compared with irrigation with saline. Protocol-based use of alteplase with extraventricular drain seems safe. Future investigation is needed to determine whether a greater frequency of complete intraventricular haemorrhage removal via alteplase produces gains in functional status.

SummaryBackgroundIntracerebral haemorrhage growth is associated with poor clinical outcome and is a therapeutic target for improving outcome. We aimed to determine the absolute risk and predictors of intracerebral haemorrhage growth, develop and validate prediction models, and evaluate the added value of CT angiography.MethodsIn a systematic review of OVID MEDLINE—with additional hand-searching of relevant studies' bibliographies— from Jan 1, 1970, to Dec 31, 2015, we identified observational cohorts and randomised trials with repeat scanning protocols that included at least ten patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage. We sought individual patient-level data from corresponding authors for patients aged 18 years or older with data available from brain imaging initially done 0·5–24 h and repeated fewer than 6 days after symptom onset, who had baseline intracerebral haemorrhage volume of less than 150 mL, and did not undergo acute treatment that might reduce intracerebral haemorrhage volume. We estimated the absolute risk and predictors of the primary outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage growth (defined as >6 mL increase in intracerebral haemorrhage volume on repeat imaging) using multivariable logistic regression models in development and validation cohorts in four subgroups of patients, using a hierarchical approach: patients not taking anticoagulant therapy at intracerebral haemorrhage onset (who constituted the largest subgroup), patients taking anticoagulant therapy at intracerebral haemorrhage onset, patients from cohorts that included at least some patients taking anticoagulant therapy at intracerebral haemorrhage onset, and patients for whom both information about anticoagulant therapy at intracerebral haemorrhage onset and spot sign on acute CT angiography were known.FindingsOf 4191 studies identified, 77 were eligible for inclusion. Overall, 36 (47%) cohorts provided data on 5435 eligible patients. 5076 of these patients were not taking anticoagulant therapy at symptom onset (median age 67 years, IQR 56–76), of whom 1009 (20%) had intracerebral haemorrhage growth. Multivariable models of patients with data on antiplatelet therapy use, data on anticoagulant therapy use, and assessment of CT angiography spot sign at symptom onset showed that time from symptom onset to baseline imaging (odds ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·36–0·70; p<0·0001), intracerebral haemorrhage volume on baseline imaging (7·18, 4·46–11·60; p<0·0001), antiplatelet use (1·68, 1·06–2·66; p=0·026), and anticoagulant use (3·48, 1·96–6·16; p<0·0001) were independent predictors of intracerebral haemorrhage growth (C-index 0·78, 95% CI 0·75–0·82). Addition of CT angiography spot sign (odds ratio 4·46, 95% CI 2·95–6·75; p<0·0001) to the model increased the C-index by 0·05 (95% CI 0·03–0·07).InterpretationIn this large patient-level meta-analysis, models using four or five predictors had acceptable to good discrimination. These models could inform the location and frequency of observations on patients in clinical practice, explain treatment effects i...

Background and purpose By 2010 there had been 14 published trials of surgery for intracerebral haemorrhage reported in systematic reviews or to the authors, but the role and timing of operative intervention remains controversial and the practice continues to be haphazard. This study attempted to obtain individual patient data from each of the 13 studies published since 1985 in order to better define groups of patients that might benefit from surgery. Methods Authors of identified published papers were approached by mail, email and at conferences and invited to take part in the study. Data were obtained from 8 studies (2186 cases). Individual patient data included patient's age, GCS at presentation, volume and site of haematoma, presence of IVH, method of evacuation, time to randomisation and outcome. Results Meta-analysis indicated that there was improved outcome with surgery if it was undertaken within 8 hours of ictus (p = 0.003), or the volume of the haematoma was 20-50ml. (p = 0.004), or the GCS was between 9 and 12 (p = 0.0009), or the patient was aged between 50 and 69 (p = 0.01). In addition there was some evidence that more superficial haematomas with no IVH might also benefit (p = 0.09). Conclusions There is evidence that surgery is of benefit if undertaken early before the patient deteriorates. This work identifies areas for further research. Ongoing studies in subgroups of patients, such as STICH II, will confirm whether these interpretations can be replicated.

The conventional approach to the analysis of a Phase III trial in head injury or stroke takes an ordered scale measuring functional outcome and collapses the scale to a binary outcome of favorable versus unfavorable. This discards potentially relevant information which limits statistical power and moreover is not in accord with clinical practice. We propose an alternative approach where a favorable outcome is defined as better than would be expected, taking account of each individual patient's baseline prognosis. This is illustrated through a worked example based on data from a Phase III trial in head injury. The approach is also compared with the proportional odds model, which is another statistical approach that can exploit an ordered outcome scale. The approach raises issues of clinical, statistical, and regulatory importance, and we initiate what we believe needs to become a widespread debate amongst the community involved in clinical research in head injury and stroke.