Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
-
Review Case Reports
Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome as an Overlooked Complication of Induced Hypertension for Cerebral Vasospasm: Systematic Review and Illustrative Case.
Delayed cerebral ischemia associated with cerebral vasospasm is a common cause of secondary neurological decline after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Triple-H therapy, induced hypertension, hypervolemia, and hemodilution, is often used to treat cerebral vasospasm. However, hypertensive treatment may carry significant medical morbidity, including cardiopulmonary, renal, and intracranial complications. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a reversible intracranial complication that has rarely been reported in the setting of induced hypertension. ⋯ PRES in the setting of SAH is an overlooked complication of hypertensive therapy for the treatment of vasospasm. However, the diagnosis of this phenomenon is crucial given the necessity to reverse hypertensive therapy, which is contrary to the usual management of patients with vasospasm.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Perihematomal Edema Is Greater in the Presence of a Spot Sign but Does Not Predict Intracerebral Hematoma Expansion.
Perihematomal edema volume may be related to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume at baseline and, consequently, with hematoma expansion. However, the relationship between perihematomal edema and hematoma expansion has not been well established. We aimed to investigate the relationship among baseline perihematomal edema, the computed tomographic angiography spot sign, hematoma expansion, and clinical outcome in patients with acute ICH. ⋯ Perihematomal edema volume is greater at baseline in the presence of a spot sign. However, it is strongly correlated with ICH volume and does not independently predict hematoma expansion.
-
The benefit of intervention for patients with unruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) was challenged by results demonstrating superior clinical outcomes with conservative management from A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain AVMs (ARUBA). The aim of this multicenter, retrospective cohort study is to analyze the outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery for ARUBA-eligible patients. ⋯ Radiosurgery may provide durable clinical benefit in some ARUBA-eligible patients. On the basis of the natural history of untreated, unruptured AVMs in the medical arm of ARUBA, we estimate that a follow-up duration of 15 to 20 years is necessary to realize a potential benefit of radiosurgical intervention for conservative management in unruptured patients with AVM.
-
The natural history of unruptured intracranial aneurysms remains unclear, and management strategy is not well defined. ⋯ Larger aneurysms are at greater risk for rupture and poor outcome. Ethnic factors may play a role in the risk of rupture.
-
To critically review and evaluate the science behind individual eligibility criteria (indication/inclusion and contraindications/exclusion criteria) for intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (alteplase) treatment in acute ischemic stroke. This will allow us to better inform stroke providers of quantitative and qualitative risks associated with alteplase administration under selected commonly and uncommonly encountered clinical circumstances and to identify future research priorities concerning these eligibility criteria, which could potentially expand the safe and judicious use of alteplase and improve outcomes after stroke. ⋯ After a review of the current literature, it was clearly evident that the levels of evidence supporting individual exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase vary widely. Several exclusionary criteria have already undergone extensive scientific study such as the clear benefit of alteplase treatment in elderly stroke patients, those with severe stroke, those with diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia, and those with minor early ischemic changes evident on computed tomography. Some exclusions such as recent intracranial surgery are likely based on common sense and sound judgment and are unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized, clinical trial to evaluate safety. Most other contraindications or warnings range somewhere in between. However, the differential impact of each exclusion criterion varies not only with the evidence base behind it but also with the frequency of the exclusion within the stroke population, the probability of coexistence of multiple exclusion factors in a single patient, and the variation in practice among treating clinicians.