Severe intraventricular hemorrhage caused by extension from subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage leads to hydrocephalus and often to poor outcome. We conducted a systematic review to compare conservative treatment, extraventricular drainage, and extraventricular drainage combined with fibrinolysis. We carried out a search in Medline of the literature between January 1966 and December 1998 and an additional hand-search from January 1990 to December 1998. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted to gather unpublished data. We reviewed the reference lists of all relevant articles. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and extracted data on characteristics of study design, patients, and treatment. Patients with primary intraventricular hemorrhage were excluded. Main outcome measures were death and poor outcome (defined as death or dependency) at the end of follow-up. No randomized clinical trial has yet been conducted so far, and we therefore reviewed only observational studies. The case fatality rate for conservative treatment (ten studies) was 78%. For extraventricular drainage (seven studies) it was 58% [relative risk versus conservative treatment (RR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.99]. For extraventricular drainage with fibrinolytic agents (five studies) the case fatality rate was 6% (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.24). The poor outcome rate for conservative treatment was 90%, that for extraventricular drainage 89% (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.75-1.30) and that for extraventricular drainage with fibrinolytic agents 34% (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.21-0.68). All RR values remained essentially the same after adjusting for age, sex, World Federation of Neurological Surgeons scale, study design, and year of publication for the studies that provided these data. Outcome is thus poor in patients with intraventricular extension of subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage. This meta-analysis suggests that treatment with ventricular drainage combined with fibrinolytics may improve outcome for such patients, although this impression is derived only from an indirect comparison between observational studies. A randomized clinical trial is warranted.
This meta-analysis suggests that both early and intermediate surgical treatment improve outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage--in particular for patients in good clinical condition at admission. However, this impression is derived only from an indirect comparison between different cohorts of patients. Sound evidence on the best timing of surgery is still lacking. Observational studies with better methods--and ideally a new randomized trial--are needed.
BackgroundPatients suffering from intracerebral haemorrhage have a poor prognosis, especially if they are using antiplatelet therapy. Currently, no effective acute treatment option for intracerebral haemorrhage exists. Limiting the early growth of intracerebral haemorrhage volume which continues the first hours after admission seems a promising strategy. Because intracerebral haemorrhage patients who are on antiplatelet therapy have been shown to be particularly at risk of early haematoma growth, platelet transfusion may have a beneficial effect.Methods/DesignThe primary objective is to investigate whether platelet transfusion improves outcome in intracerebral haemorrhage patients who are on antiplatelet treatment. The PATCH study is a prospective, randomised, multi-centre study with open treatment and blind endpoint evaluation. Patients will be randomised to receive platelet transfusion within six hours or standard care. The primary endpoint is functional health after three months. The main secondary endpoints are safety of platelet transfusion and the occurrence of haematoma growth. To detect an absolute poor outcome reduction of 20%, a total of 190 patients will be included.DiscussionTo our knowledge this is the first randomised controlled trial of platelet transfusion for an acute haemorrhagic disease.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR1303)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.