Does intrathecal nicardipine for cerebral vasospasm following subarachnoid hemorrhage correlate with reduced delayed cerebral ischemia? A retrospective propensity score–based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) contribute to poor outcome following subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). With the paucity of effective treatments, the authors describe their experience with intrathecal (IT) nicardipine for this indication. METHODS: Patients admitted to the Emory University Hospital neuroscience ICU between 2012 and 2017 with nontraumatic SAH, either aneurysmal or idiopathic, were included in the analysis. Using a propensity-score model, this patient cohort was compared to patients in the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage International Trialists (SAHIT) repository who did not receive IT nicardipine. The primary outcome was DCI. Secondary outcomes were long-term functional outcome and adverse events. RESULTS: The analysis included 1351 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 significantly younger (mean age 51.1 ± 12.4 years vs 56.7 ± 14.1 years, p < 0.001), had a higher World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies score and modified Fisher grade, and were more likely to undergo clipping of the ruptured aneurysm as compared to endovascular treatment (30.3% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001). Treatment with IT nicardipine decreased the 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 increased rate of bacterial ventriculitis (3.1% vs 2.7%, p > 0.1), yet higher rates of ventriculoperitoneal shunting were noted (19.9% vs 8.8%, p < 0.01). In a propensity score comparison to the SAHIT database, the odds ratio (OR) to develop DCI with IT nicardipine treatment was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.84), and the OR to have a favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2) was 2.17 (95% CI 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. These data should be considered when selecting medications and treatments to study in future randomized controlled clinical trials 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".