OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical evolution of perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: The study was conducted retrospectively in a tertiary hospital center in the north region of Portugal. Included patients had no identifiable cause for subarachnoid hemorrhage. Several epidemiologic, clinical and imaging aspects were statistically analyzed, taking into account the differences in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (46.8% - perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage; 53.2% - non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage). Demographic and clinical background characteristics were similar in both groups. Complications were more frequent in patients with non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage - 84.8% of the patients had at least one complication versus 48.3% in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Vasospasm, infection and hydrocephaly were the most common complications (each was detected more frequently in the non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group than in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group). Two patients died, both had a non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The median inpatient time was longer in the non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group (21 versus 14 days). No incidents of rebleeding were reported during the follow-up period (mean time of 15 ± 10.3 months). CONCLUSION: Perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage are two different entities that have different clinical outcomes, namely in terms of complication rate and median inpatient time. The management of these patients should respect this difference to improve treatment and optimize health care resources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical evolution of perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: The study was conducted retrospectively in a tertiary hospital center in the north region of Portugal. Included patients had no identifiable cause for subarachnoid hemorrhage. Several epidemiologic, clinical and imaging aspects were statistically analyzed, taking into account the differences in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (46.8% - perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage; 53.2% - non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage). Demographic and clinical background characteristics were similar in both groups. Complications were more frequent in patients with non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage - 84.8% of the patients had at least one complication versus 48.3% in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Vasospasm, infection and hydrocephaly were the most common complications (each was detected more frequently in the non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group than in perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group). Two patients died, both had a non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The median inpatient time was longer in the non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage group (21 versus 14 days). No incidents of rebleeding were reported during the follow-up period (mean time of 15 ± 10.3 months). CONCLUSION:Perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage and non-perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage are two different entities that have different clinical outcomes, namely in terms of complication rate and median inpatient time. The management of these patients should respect this difference to improve treatment and optimize health care resources.
Authors: E Sander Connolly; Alejandro A Rabinstein; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Colin P Derdeyn; Jacques Dion; Randall T Higashida; Brian L Hoh; Catherine J Kirkness; Andrew M Naidech; Christopher S Ogilvy; Aman B Patel; B Gregory Thompson; Paul Vespa Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Sean Kincaid; Michael J Souter; Miriam M Treggiari; N David Yanez; Anne Moore; Arthur M Lam Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: M A Sloan; A V Alexandrov; C H Tegeler; M P Spencer; L R Caplan; E Feldmann; L R Wechsler; D W Newell; C R Gomez; V L Babikian; D Lefkowitz; R S Goldman; C Armon; C Y Hsu; D S Goodin Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-05-11 Impact factor: 9.910