Intrathecal Nicardipine for Cerebral Vasospasm Post Subarachnoid Hemorrhage – a Retrospective Analysis and Propensity-Based Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Purpose Cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) contribute to poor outcome following subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). With the paucity of effective treatments, we describe our experience with intrathecal (IT) nicardipine for this indication. Methods Patients admitted to Emory University Hospital Neuroscience ICU between 2012-2017 with non-traumatic SAH, either aneurysmal or idiopathic, were included in the analysis. This patient cohort was compared using a propensity-score model to patients in the SAH international trialist (SAHIT) repository who did not receive intrathecal nicardipine. The primary outcome was DCI. Secondary outcomes were long-term functional outcome and adverse events. Results The analysis included 1,351 patients, 422 of whom were diagnosed with cerebral vasospasm and treated with IT nicardipine. When compared with patients with no vasospasm (n=859) the treated group was younger (51.1±12.4 vs. 56.7±14.1, p<0.01), had a higher World Federation of Neurological Surgeons score (WFNS), modified Fisher grade, and more likely to undergo clipping of the ruptured aneurysm as compared to endovascular treatment (30.3% vs. 11.3%, p<0.01). Treatment with IT nicardipine decreased daily mean transcranial Doppler velocities in 77.3% of the treated patients. When compared to patients not receiving IT nicardipine, treatment was not associated with an increase rate of bacterial ventriculitis (3.1% compared with 2.7%, p>0.1) yet higher rates of VP shunting were noted (19.9% vs. 8.8%, p<0.01). In a propensity score comparison to the SAHIT database, the odds ratio to develop DCI with IT nicardipine treatment was 0.61 with 95% CI[0.44-0.84], and to have a favorable functional outcome (mRS≤2) was 2.17[1.61-2.91]. Conclusions IT nicardipine was associated with improved outcome and reduced DCI compared with propensity matched controls. There was an increased need for permanent CSF diversion but no other safety issues. This data should be considered when selecting medications and treatments to study in future randomized controlled clinical trial for SAH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".