L Andereggen1,2, J Beck1, W J Z'Graggen1,3, G Schroth2, R H Andres1, M Murek1, M Haenggi4, M Reinert1, A Raabe1, J Gralla5. 1. From the Department of Neurosurgery (L.A., J.B., W.J.Z., R.H.A., M.M., M.R., A.R.). 2. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (L.A., G.S., J.G.). 3. Departments of Neurology (W.J.Z.). 4. Intensive Care Medicine (M.H.), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland. 5. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (L.A., G.S., J.G.) jan.gralla@insel.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to medical and hemodynamic therapies, endovascular therapies often remain the last resort. Data from studies in large cohorts on the efficacy and safety of multiple immediate endovascular interventions are sparse. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and safety of multiple repeat instant endovascular interventions in patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to medical, hemodynamic, and initial endovascular interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of prospectively collected data on patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to therapies requiring ≥3 endovascular interventions during the course of treatment following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The primary end point was functional outcome at last follow-up (mRS ≤2). The secondary end point was angiographic response to endovascular therapies and the appearance of cerebral infarctions. RESULTS: During a 4-year period, 365 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were treated at our institution. Thirty-one (8.5%) met the inclusion criteria. In 52 (14%) patients, ≤2 endovascular interventions were performed as rescue therapy for refractory cerebral vasospasm. At last follow-up, a good outcome was noted in 18 (58%) patients with ≥3 interventions compared with 31 (61%) of those with ≤2 interventions (P = .82). The initial Hunt and Hess score of ≤2 was a significant independent predictor of good outcome (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.2-18.5; P = .03), whereas infarcts in eloquent brain areas were significantly associated with a poor outcome (mRS 3-6; OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 2.3-81.2; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat instant endovascular intervention is an aggressive but feasible last resort treatment strategy with a favorable outcome in two-thirds of patients with refractory cerebral vasospasm and in whom endovascular treatment has already been initiated.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to medical and hemodynamic therapies, endovascular therapies often remain the last resort. Data from studies in large cohorts on the efficacy and safety of multiple immediate endovascular interventions are sparse. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and safety of multiple repeat instant endovascular interventions in patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to medical, hemodynamic, and initial endovascular interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of prospectively collected data on patients with cerebral vasospasm refractory to therapies requiring ≥3 endovascular interventions during the course of treatment following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The primary end point was functional outcome at last follow-up (mRS ≤2). The secondary end point was angiographic response to endovascular therapies and the appearance of cerebral infarctions. RESULTS: During a 4-year period, 365 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were treated at our institution. Thirty-one (8.5%) met the inclusion criteria. In 52 (14%) patients, ≤2 endovascular interventions were performed as rescue therapy for refractory cerebral vasospasm. At last follow-up, a good outcome was noted in 18 (58%) patients with ≥3 interventions compared with 31 (61%) of those with ≤2 interventions (P = .82). The initial Hunt and Hess score of ≤2 was a significant independent predictor of good outcome (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.2-18.5; P = .03), whereas infarcts in eloquent brain areas were significantly associated with a poor outcome (mRS 3-6; OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 2.3-81.2; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat instant endovascular intervention is an aggressive but feasible last resort treatment strategy with a favorable outcome in two-thirds of patients with refractory cerebral vasospasm and in whom endovascular treatment has already been initiated.
Authors: Karol P Budohoski; Marek Czosnyka; Peter J Kirkpatrick; Peter Smielewski; Luzius A Steiner; John D Pickard Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Robert F Spetzler; Cameron G McDougall; Felipe C Albuquerque; Joseph M Zabramski; Nancy K Hills; Shahram Partovi; Peter Nakaji; Robert C Wallace Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Robert F Spetzler; Cameron G McDougall; Joseph M Zabramski; Felipe C Albuquerque; Nancy K Hills; Jonathan J Russin; Shahram Partovi; Peter Nakaji; Robert C Wallace Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Paula M Janssen; Nora A Visser; Sanne M Dorhout Mees; Catharina J M Klijn; Ale Algra; Gabriel J E Rinkel Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Jennifer A Frontera; Andres Fernandez; J Michael Schmidt; Jan Claassen; Katja E Wartenberg; Neeraj Badjatia; E Sander Connolly; Stephan A Mayer Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S M Dorhout Mees; G J E Rinkel; V L Feigin; A Algra; W M van den Bergh; M Vermeulen; J van Gijn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2007-07-18
Authors: M-A Labeyrie; S Gaugain; G Boulouis; A Zetchi; J Brami; J-P Saint-Maurice; V Civelli; S Froelich; E Houdart Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Miriam Weiss; Walid Albanna; Catharina Conzen-Dilger; Nick Kastenholz; Katharina Seyfried; Hani Ridwan; Martin Wiesmann; Michael Veldeman; Tobias Philip Schmidt; Murad Megjhani; Henna Schulze-Steinen; Hans Clusmann; Marinus Johannes Hermanus Aries; Soojin Park; Gerrit Alexander Schubert Journal: Stroke Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: T E Darsaut; C Derksen; B Farzin; M B Keough; R Fahed; W Boisseau; L Letourneau-Guillon; A-C Januel; A Weill; D Roy; T N Nguyen; S Finitsis; J-C Gentric; D Volders; A Carlson; M M Chow; C O'Kelly; J L Rempel; R A Ashforth; M Chagnon; J Zehr; J M Findlay; G Gevry; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Miriam Weiss; Catharina Conzen; Marguerite Mueller; Martin Wiesmann; Hans Clusmann; Walid Albanna; Gerrit Alexander Schubert Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Christian Fung; Werner J Z'Graggen; Stephan M Jakob; Jan Gralla; Matthias Haenggi; Hans-Ulrich Rothen; Pasquale Mordasini; Michael Lensch; Nicole Söll; Nicole Terpolilli; Sergej Feiler; Markus F Oertel; Andreas Raabe; Nikolaus Plesnila; Jukka Takala; Jürgen Beck Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Stefan Wanderer; Basil E Grüter; Fabio Strange; Sivani Sivanrupan; Stefano Di Santo; Hans Rudolf Widmer; Javier Fandino; Serge Marbacher; Lukas Andereggen Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2020-03-07