Hemicraniectomy and Moderate Hypothermia in Patients With Severe Ischemic Stroke

D. Georgiadis, S. Schwarz, A. Aschoff, S. Schwab
{"title":"Hemicraniectomy and Moderate Hypothermia in Patients With Severe Ischemic Stroke","authors":"D. Georgiadis, S. Schwarz, A. Aschoff, S. Schwab","doi":"10.1161/01.STR.0000016970.51004.D9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Purpose— We compared the clinical course of 36 consecutive patients with severe acute ischemic stroke (more than two thirds of the middle cerebral artery territory) treated with hemicraniectomy (CE; n=17) or moderate hypothermia (MH; n=19) in terms of intracranial pressure control, mortality, and specific treatment parameters. Methods— Over a period of 18 months, patients with severe ischemic stroke were treated with CE when the nondominant hemisphere was affected and with MH when the dominant hemisphere was affected. MH (33°C) was induced with either cold blankets and fans (n=11) or endovascular cooling (n=8). Intracranial pressure was monitored invasively in all cases. Results— Age, sex, cranial CT findings, level of consciousness, and time to treatment were similar between the 2 groups; significant differences were noted in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (20 [range, 18 to 22] and 17 [range, 16 to 18] for MH and CE, respectively) but were not present when NIHSS score was corrected for aphasia (17 [range, 15 to 19] and 17 [range, 16 to 18] for MH and CE, respectively). Mortality was 12% for CE and 47% for MH; 1 patient treated with MH died as a result of treatment complications (sepsis) and 3 of intracranial pressure crises that occurred during rewarming. Duration of mechanical ventilation and of neurological intensive care unit stay did not significantly differ, but duration of catecholamine application and maximal catecholamine dosage were significantly higher in the MH group. Conclusions— In patients with severe ischemic stroke, CE results in lower mortality and lower complication rates compared with MH. Both treatment modalities, however, are associated with intensive medical treatment and a prolonged stay in the neurological intensive care unit.","PeriodicalId":22274,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":"11 1","pages":"1584-1588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"187","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000016970.51004.D9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 187

Abstract

Background and Purpose— We compared the clinical course of 36 consecutive patients with severe acute ischemic stroke (more than two thirds of the middle cerebral artery territory) treated with hemicraniectomy (CE; n=17) or moderate hypothermia (MH; n=19) in terms of intracranial pressure control, mortality, and specific treatment parameters. Methods— Over a period of 18 months, patients with severe ischemic stroke were treated with CE when the nondominant hemisphere was affected and with MH when the dominant hemisphere was affected. MH (33°C) was induced with either cold blankets and fans (n=11) or endovascular cooling (n=8). Intracranial pressure was monitored invasively in all cases. Results— Age, sex, cranial CT findings, level of consciousness, and time to treatment were similar between the 2 groups; significant differences were noted in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (20 [range, 18 to 22] and 17 [range, 16 to 18] for MH and CE, respectively) but were not present when NIHSS score was corrected for aphasia (17 [range, 15 to 19] and 17 [range, 16 to 18] for MH and CE, respectively). Mortality was 12% for CE and 47% for MH; 1 patient treated with MH died as a result of treatment complications (sepsis) and 3 of intracranial pressure crises that occurred during rewarming. Duration of mechanical ventilation and of neurological intensive care unit stay did not significantly differ, but duration of catecholamine application and maximal catecholamine dosage were significantly higher in the MH group. Conclusions— In patients with severe ischemic stroke, CE results in lower mortality and lower complication rates compared with MH. Both treatment modalities, however, are associated with intensive medical treatment and a prolonged stay in the neurological intensive care unit.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重度缺血性脑卒中患者的半颅骨切除术和中低温治疗
背景和目的:我们比较了36例连续的重度急性缺血性卒中(超过三分之二的大脑中动脉区域)患者的临床病程,这些患者接受了半脑切除术(CE;n=17)或中低温(MH;N =19)在颅内压控制、死亡率和具体治疗参数方面。方法:在18个月的时间里,严重缺血性卒中患者在非优势半球受影响时接受CE治疗,在优势半球受影响时接受MH治疗。用冷毯和风扇(n=11)或血管内冷却(n=8)诱导MH(33°C)。所有病例均有创性监测颅内压。结果:两组患者的年龄、性别、头颅CT表现、意识水平和治疗时间相似;美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分(MH和CE分别为20[范围,18至22]和17[范围,16至18])存在显著差异,但在对失语症进行NIHSS评分校正时不存在显著差异(MH和CE分别为17[范围,15至19]和17[范围,16至18])。CE和MH的死亡率分别为12%和47%;1例接受MH治疗的患者死于治疗并发症(败血症),3例死于复温期间发生的颅内压危象。机械通气时间和神经系统重症监护病房住院时间无显著差异,但儿茶酚胺应用时间和儿茶酚胺最大剂量在MH组显著较高。结论:在严重缺血性卒中患者中,与MH相比,CE的死亡率和并发症发生率更低。然而,这两种治疗方式都与强化医学治疗和延长神经重症监护病房的住院时间有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: A Common Agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association Recurrent Stroke in Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Artery Occlusion Is Associated With High-Volume Flow to the Brain and Increased Collateral Circulation Risk of Stroke Associated With Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Nested Case-Control Study Imaging-Based Decision Making in Thrombolytic Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: Present Status Risk Factors for Falling in Home-Dwelling Older Women With Stroke: The Women’s Health and Aging Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1