Association of Surgical Hematoma Evacuation vs Conservative Treatment With Functional Outcome in Patients With Cerebellar Intracerebral Hemorrhage.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 10 2019
08 10 2019
Historique:
entrez:
9
10
2019
pubmed:
9
10
2019
medline:
24
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The association of surgical hematoma evacuation with clinical outcomes in patients with cerebellar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has not been established. To determine the association of surgical hematoma evacuation with clinical outcomes in cerebellar ICH. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of 4 observational ICH studies incorporating 6580 patients treated at 64 hospitals across the United States and Germany (2006-2015). Surgical hematoma evacuation vs conservative treatment. The primary outcome was functional disability evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale ([mRS] score range: 0, no functional deficit to 6, death) at 3 months; favorable (mRS, 0-3) vs unfavorable (mRS, 4-6). Secondary outcomes included survival at 3 months and at 12 months. Analyses included propensity score matching and covariate adjustment, and predicted probabilities were used to identify treatment-related cutoff values for cerebellar ICH. Among 578 patients with cerebellar ICH, propensity score-matched groups included 152 patients with surgical hematoma evacuation vs 152 patients with conservative treatment (age, 68.9 vs 69.2 years; men, 55.9% vs 51.3%; prior anticoagulation, 60.5% vs 63.8%; and median ICH volume, 20.5 cm3 vs 18.8 cm3). After adjustment, surgical hematoma evacuation vs conservative treatment was not significantly associated with likelihood of better functional disability at 3 months (30.9% vs 35.5%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.09], P = .43; adjusted risk difference [ARD], -3.7% [95% CI, -8.7% to 1.2%]) but was significantly associated with greater probability of survival at 3 months (78.3% vs 61.2%; AOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.45], P = .005; ARD, 18.5% [95% CI, 13.8% to 23.2%]) and at 12 months (71.7% vs 57.2%; AOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.42], P = .02; ARD, 17.0% [95% CI, 11.5% to 22.6%]). A volume range of 12 to 15 cm3 was identified; below this level, surgical hematoma evacuation was associated with lower likelihood of favorable functional outcome (volume ≤12 cm3, 30.6% vs 62.3% [P = .003]; ARD, -34.7% [-38.8% to -30.6%]; P value for interaction, .01), and above, it was associated with greater likelihood of survival (volume ≥15 cm3, 74.5% vs 45.1% [P < .001]; ARD, 28.2% [95% CI, 24.6% to 31.8%]; P value for interaction, .02). Among patients with cerebellar ICH, surgical hematoma evacuation, compared with conservative treatment, was not associated with improved functional outcome. Given the null primary outcome, investigation is necessary to establish whether there are differing associations based on hematoma volume.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31593272
pii: 2752468
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.13014
pmc: PMC6784768
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1392-1403Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : P50 NS051343
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG026484
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS069763
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS093870
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Eur Heart J. 2018 May 14;39(19):1709-1723
pubmed: 29529259
Crit Care Med. 2019 Feb;47(2):176-185
pubmed: 30543566
Stroke. 2013 Oct;44(10):e120-5
pubmed: 24021679
Lancet. 2017 Feb 11;389(10069):603-611
pubmed: 28081952
Eur Neurol. 2004;52(2):112-9
pubmed: 15319556
Stroke. 2018 Nov;49(11):2621-2629
pubmed: 30355188
JAMA. 2018 Jun 5;319(21):2190-2201
pubmed: 29872859
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Feb;41(2):348-50
pubmed: 25578679
Stroke. 2015 Jul;46(7):2032-60
pubmed: 26022637
Stroke. 2009 Feb;40(2):569-76
pubmed: 18988914
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1279-88
pubmed: 27673305
Neurol Res. 1984 Sep;6(3):145-51
pubmed: 6151139
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Apr;6(4):297-311
pubmed: 15803161
Lancet Glob Health. 2013 Nov;1(5):e259-81
pubmed: 25104492
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):463-473
pubmed: 29372247
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):951-7
pubmed: 19018930
Int J Stroke. 2014 Oct;9(7):838-9
pubmed: 25231578
Stat Med. 2017 Feb 28;36(5):855-875
pubmed: 27747915
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Apr;8(4):326-33
pubmed: 19269254
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1994;131(1-2):59-66
pubmed: 7709785
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65
pubmed: 25919529
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(39):3028-34
pubmed: 24014390
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Mar;6(3):215-22
pubmed: 17303527
Stroke. 1996 Aug;27(8):1304-5
pubmed: 8711791
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017 Apr;155:22-29
pubmed: 28226284
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 15;375(11):1033-43
pubmed: 27276234
JAMA. 2015 Feb 24;313(8):824-36
pubmed: 25710659
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1993;122(3-4):187-93
pubmed: 8372706
Neurology. 2017 Aug 1;89(5):423-431
pubmed: 28679602
Ann Neurol. 2018 Jan;83(1):186-196
pubmed: 29314216
J Neurol. 2014 Feb;261(2):324-9
pubmed: 24297364
Neurol Clin. 2014 Nov;32(4):993-1007
pubmed: 25439293