PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cerebral vasospasm (CVS) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage remains a considerable challenge in neurocritical care medicine. This review aims to cover the recent novel aspects and results in CVS treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: On the basis of the recent literature, treatment focusing on CVS alone is outdated. A considerable amount of evidence suggests CVS not to be the sole cause of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and poor outcome. Early brain injury, cortical spreading depolarization, inflammation and microthrombosis have recently been discussed as additional factors. The results of a well designed phase III trial, using an endothelin-1 antagonist, indicated a decrease in the occurrence of CVS but did not change the clinical outcome significantly. Induced hypertension is currently recommended for treating suspected DCI, whereas hemodilution and hypervolemia are not. Endovascular intervention is only recommended in case of refractory symptomatic CVS. A couple of newer treatment strategies are under evaluation. Phase III trials are underway for magnesium sulfate and statins. Clinical trials aiming specifically at recently discussed factors other than CVS have not been reported. SUMMARY: Reviewing the recent literature, there have been some updates on recommendations and newer treatment modalities are under evaluation. However, a novel treatment with convincing evidence has not been reported so far.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cerebral vasospasm (CVS) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage remains a considerable challenge in neurocritical care medicine. This review aims to cover the recent novel aspects and results in CVS treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: On the basis of the recent literature, treatment focusing on CVS alone is outdated. A considerable amount of evidence suggests CVS not to be the sole cause of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and poor outcome. Early brain injury, cortical spreading depolarization, inflammation and microthrombosis have recently been discussed as additional factors. The results of a well designed phase III trial, using an endothelin-1 antagonist, indicated a decrease in the occurrence of CVS but did not change the clinical outcome significantly. Induced hypertension is currently recommended for treating suspected DCI, whereas hemodilution and hypervolemia are not. Endovascular intervention is only recommended in case of refractory symptomatic CVS. A couple of newer treatment strategies are under evaluation. Phase III trials are underway for magnesium sulfate and statins. Clinical trials aiming specifically at recently discussed factors other than CVS have not been reported. SUMMARY: Reviewing the recent literature, there have been some updates on recommendations and newer treatment modalities are under evaluation. However, a novel treatment with convincing evidence has not been reported so far.
Authors: Guilherme B F Porto; Alejandro M Spiotta; Julio A Chalela; Ryan T Kellogg; Edward C Jauch Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Vanessa Weyer; Máté E Maros; Andrea Kronfeld; Stefanie Kirschner; Christoph Groden; Clemens Sommer; Yasemin Tanyildizi; Martin Kramer; Marc A Brockmann Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Carl Muroi; Johanna B Lemb; Michael Hugelshofer; Martin Seule; David Bellut; Emanuela Keller Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.210