Outcomes After Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome With Convexity Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The most common cause of convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH) in younger patients (younger than 60 years) is reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS). Evidence on the long-term outcomes of future vascular events and functional outcome after cSAH due to RCVS is limited. We aimed to assess the rates and baseline predictors of our primary outcomes (cSAH, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and ischemic stroke), functional outcome, and mortality after cSAH attributed to RCVS. METHODS: Individual patient data pooled analysis in patients with cSAH attributed to RCVS. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Quality assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Early events during the accepted time frame of an RCVS episode (<3 months) were classified as progression rather than recurrence. Follow-up was truncated at 5 years. Primary outcomes were recurrent cSAH, ICH, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes were mortality and functional status measured by modified Rankin Score (mRS). RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible cohorts finally including 138 patients from 9 collaborative centers, which provided individual patient data. The mean age was 49.3 ± 12.1 years, and 110 (79.7%) were female. During a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, annual rates were cSAH recurrence 0.81% (95% CI 0.1-2.91), ICH 0.81% (95% CI 0.1-2.91), and ischemic stroke 0.81% (95% CI 0.1-2.91). Progression during the initial episode (shortly after admission) occurred in 10 patients for cSAH, 2 for ICH, and 8 for ischemic stroke, respectively. Of 106 patients (76.8%) with available outcome data, 100 (94.3%) achieve a mRS of ≤1 at follow-up, indicating no significant disability. Two patients died (annual rate 0.5%, 95% CI 0.09-2.9): one within 10 days and the other within 2 months of the cSAH. DISCUSSION: Our data suggest a favorable prognosis for most patients after RCVS-associated cSAH with low rates of recurrent events and a high proportion achieving functional independence. Major limitations include retrospective data collection and potential selection bias from centers providing individual patient data. Nevertheless, these findings provide prognostic information to inform clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".