A Randomized Outcome Study of Enteral versus Intravenous Nimodipine in 171 Patients After Acute Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Soppi, Ville; Karamanakos, Petros N; Koivisto, Timo; Kurki, Mitja; Vanninen, Ritva; Jääskeläinen, Juha E.; Rinne, Jaakko

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.030

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 A recently published outcome study with 171 patients revealed no differences in clinical efficacy of enteral and parenteral nimodipine treatment after aneurysmal SAH. 18 Glasgow Outcome Scale revealed more patients in favorable conditions at the 3-month follow-up in the group with enteral medication (76%) as compared with the parenteral group (70%). 18 Infarct diameter was smaller in the group following parenteral nimodipine treatment, and the frequency of delayed ischemic neurological deficits was 16% in the group with parenteral medication as compared with 20% after enteral nimodipine administration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Enteral or Parenteral Nimodipine Treatment: A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study

Scheller

Wienke

Wurm

et al. 2013

J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Enteral or Parenteral Nimodipine Treatment: A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study

Scheller

Wienke

Wurm

et al. 2013

J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite a comprehensive search strategy and liberal inclusion criteria, a total of only eight peer-reviewed articles from six different studies were identified; this provides an immediate indication of the paucity of research in this important field of study. Across the six studies, the respective preferencebased HRQoL measure was used in an economic evaluation on three occasions (Bowen et al, 2012;Palmer et al, 2012;van der Gaag et al, 2005); in the remaining three studies, the preference-based instruments served as QoL measures for purposes other than exploring issues of cost-effectiveness (Jakola et al, 2011;Kiphuth et al, 2010;Soppi et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are no explicit references to other data collection methodologies, such as self-report postal questionnaires or web-based surveys (i.e., approaches without direct contact between interviewer and participant). However, there are a number of unknowns within the six studies; more specifically, it is not clear how data were collected at baseline by Jakola et al (2011), at 5-and 8-months in the CACTUS trial (Latimer et al, 2013;Palmer et al, 2012), and at 12-month follow-up by Soppi et al (2012).…”

Section: Jakolamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean index scores, specific to individuals living with aphasia, were infrequently reported. For example, in the three studies where participants with aphasia, dysphasia, or "aphasia/language difficulty" symptoms were a subgroup of the broader study sample, no aphasia-specific mean index scores were reported (Jakola et al, 2011;Kiphuth et al, 2010;Soppi et al, 2012). Table 3 provides details of mean index score estimates reported in the remaining five published manuscripts.…”

Section: Psychometric Properties and Reporting Of Index Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preference-based health-related quality of life in the context of aphasia: a research synthesis

Whitehurst

Latimer

Kagan³

et al. 2014

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Economic considerations are increasingly important in all areas of health care because of the need to determine the value of new and existing treatments. A key component of the current economic evaluation framework is the measurement of health outcomes in a manner that permits comparability across clinical areas-often referred to as "generic" outcome measurement-and incorporates societal preferences. Preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments are widely used to collect such data. Aims: To provide a research synthesis regarding the consideration and/or use of preference-based HRQoL instruments in the context of aphasia. A systematic search was conducted to identify aphasia-related publications that contained any of the leading preference-based instruments; in particular, the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life (multiple variants), EQ-5D (three-level and five-level), Health Utilities Index (Mark 2 and Mark 3), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered, and/or SF-6D (SF-36 and SF-12 versions). In addition to providing an overview of how different measures have been used in aphasia research, a focus of the evaluation was to collate evidence for measurement properties and identify knowledge gaps, providing directions for further research. A secondary objective was to explore how preference-based measures have been discussed, broadly, in the aphasia literature. The latter objective originates from a desire to reflect the extent to which aphasia researchers have considered standard approaches to outcome measurement for the purposes of economic evaluation. Main Contribution: Eight publications (from six studies) were identified; the threelevel EQ-5D was used on four occasions, and the 15D and an "accessible" version of the three-level EQ-5D were used once. The key finding is that there have been no psychometric evaluations of preference-based HRQoL instruments in the context of aphasia. One paper explicitly discussed the challenge of using standardised, generic preference-based instruments with individuals with aphasia; researchers devised an accessible version of the EQ-5D, based on pictures rather than text (this remains unvalidated and is not an official EQ-5D instrument). The absence of any supportive evidence regarding the performance of preference-based instruments in the context of *Corresponding author. aphasia hampers the ability to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments and interventions within the current economic evaluation framework. Conclusions: There is a distinct lack of conceptual or empirical research regarding the appropriateness of current preference-based HRQoL instruments in the context of aphasia. Development and extensive validation of an accessible, generic preferencebased HRQoL instrument appears to be an appropriate research direction.

show abstract

“…Based on the previous studies, there was no significant difference between the enteral versus intravenous group in the incidence of delayed ischemic neurologic deficits, middle cerebral artery blood flow velocities, number of new ischemic lesions or clinical outcome [3, 5]. The interesting issue regarding the article by Abboud et al is how these results could be transferred to daily practice in light of the well-known clinical data on the administration of nimodipine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A dilemma regarding the optimal administration of nimodipine in the subarachnoid hemorrhage

Tykocki

2015

Acta Neurochir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Randomized Outcome Study of Enteral versus Intravenous Nimodipine in 171 Patients After Acute Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Cited by 39 publications

References 36 publications

Enteral or Parenteral Nimodipine Treatment: A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study

Enteral or Parenteral Nimodipine Treatment: A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Study

Preference-based health-related quality of life in the context of aphasia: a research synthesis

A dilemma regarding the optimal administration of nimodipine in the subarachnoid hemorrhage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About