The pharmacological landscape of chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies.

Abstract

Background There are various treatment modalities for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) and there is extensive debate surrounding pharmaceutical interventions. There is no consensus regarding the relative efficacy and safety of multiple treatment modalities. This study aims to investigate this issue and offer potential clinical recommendations. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to May 2023 to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies reporting one or more outcomes associated with the pharmacologic management of CSDH. The primary outcomes of interest included recurrence, favorable prognosis and adverse events, while the secondary outcomes included a reduction in hematoma volume and mortality. Pooled estimates, credible intervals and odds ratios were calculated for all outcomes using a fixed effects model. Confidence in network meta-analysis judgments were employed to stratify the evidential quality. This study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023406599. Results The search strategy yielded 656 references; ultimately, 36 studies involving 8082 patients fulfilled our predefined inclusion criteria. The findings suggested that statins + glucocorticoids (GCs) ranked highest for preventing recurrence, improving prognosis and facilitating hematoma absorption. Tranexamic acid ranked second highest for preventing recurrence. Statins were found to be the preferred drug intervention for decreasing mortality and preventing adverse events. Antithrombotic agents ranked lowest in terms of decreasing mortality and improving prognosis. Conclusions Our findings indicate that statins + GCs may be the most effective treatment modality for preventing recurrence, improving patient prognosis and facilitating hematoma absorption. In terms of reducing mortality and preventing adverse events, statins may be superior to other pharmacological interventions. Routine use of GCs is not suggested for patients with CSDH. Further prospective research is needed to directly compare the efficacy and superiority of various pharmaceutical interventions targeting CSDH to reinforce and validate our findings.