Background

Acute treatment of cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure is a common issue in patients with neurological injury. Practical recommendations regarding selection and monitoring of therapies for initial management of cerebral edema for optimal efficacy and safety are generally lacking. This guideline evaluates the role of hyperosmolar agents (mannitol, HTS), corticosteroids, and selected non-pharmacologic therapies in the acute treatment of cerebral edema. Clinicians must be able to select appropriate therapies for initial cerebral edema management based on available evidence while balancing efficacy and safety.

Methods

The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacy to create a panel in 2017. The group generated 16 clinical questions related to initial management of cerebral edema in various neurological insults using the PICO format. A research librarian executed a comprehensive literature search through July 2018. The panel screened the identified articles for inclusion related to each specific PICO question and abstracted necessary information for pertinent publications. The panel used GRADE methodology to categorize the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the findings of each publication approximate the true effect of the therapy.

Results

The panel generated recommendations regarding initial management of cerebral edema in neurocritical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, bacterial meningitis, and hepatic encephalopathy.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests hyperosmolar therapy may be helpful in reducing ICP elevations or cerebral edema in patients with SAH, TBI, AIS, ICH, and HE, although neurological outcomes do not appear to be affected. Corticosteroids appear to be helpful in reducing cerebral edema in patients with bacterial meningitis, but not ICH. Differences in therapeutic response and safety may exist between HTS and mannitol. The use of these agents in these critical clinical situations merits close monitoring for adverse effects. There is a dire need for high-quality research to better inform clinicians of the best options for individualized care of patients with cerebral edema.

Purpose

The CT angiography (CTA) spot sign is a strong predictor of hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, CTA parameters vary widely across centers and may negatively impact spot sign accuracy in predicting ICH expansion. We developed a CT iodine calibration phantom that was scanned at different institutions in a large multicenter ICH clinical trial to determine the effect of image standardization on spot sign detection and performance.

Methods

A custom phantom containing known concentrations of iodine was designed and scanned using the stroke CT protocol at each institution. Custom software was developed to read the CT volume datasets and calculate the Hounsfield unit as a function of iodine concentration for each phantom scan. CTA images obtained within 8 h from symptom onset were analyzed by two trained readers comparing the calibrated vs. uncalibrated density cutoffs for spot sign identification. ICH expansion was defined as hematoma volume growth >33%.

Results

A total of 90 subjects qualified for the study, of whom 17/83 (20.5%) experienced ICH expansion. The number of spot sign positive scans was higher in the calibrated analysis (67.8 vs 38.9% p < 0.001). All spot signs identified in the non-calibrated analysis remained positive after calibration. Calibrated CTA images had higher sensitivity for ICH expansion (76 vs 52%) but inferior specificity (35 vs 63%) compared with uncalibrated images.

Conclusion

Normalization of CTA images using phantom data is a feasible strategy to obtain consistent image quantification for spot sign analysis across different sites and may improve sensitivity for identification of ICH expansion.

Background and purpose

The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) sponsored an imaging session and workshop during the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XI via webinar on October 1 to 2, 2020, to develop consensus recommendations, particularly regarding optimal imaging at primary stroke centers.

Methods

This forum brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss imaging priorities in the light of developments in reperfusion therapies, particularly in an extended time window, and reinvigorated interest in brain cytoprotection trials.

Results

The imaging session summarized and compared the imaging components of recent acute stroke trials and debated the optimal imaging strategy at primary stroke centers. The imaging workshop developed consensus recommendations for optimizing the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance acute stroke imaging, and also recommendations on imaging strategies for primary stroke centers.

Conclusions

Recent positive acute stroke clinical trials have extended the treatment window for reperfusion therapies using imaging selection. Achieving rapid and high-quality stroke imaging is therefore critical at both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. Recommendations for enhancing stroke imaging research are provided.

Background

Iron from haemolysed blood is implicated in secondary injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to assess the safety of the iron chelator deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and to establish whether the drug merits investigation in a phase 3 trial.

Methods

We did a multicentre, futility-design, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial at 40 hospitals in Canada and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with primary, spontaneous, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive deferoxamine mesylate (32 mg/kg per day) or placebo (saline) infusions for 3 consecutive days within 24 h of haemorrhage onset. Randomisation was done via a web-based trial-management system centrally in real time, and treatment allocation was concealed from both participants and investigators. The primary outcome was good clinical outcome, which was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at day 90. We did a futility analysis: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants with a good clinical outcome was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, then to move to a phase 3 efficacy trial would be futile. Primary outcome and safety data were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising only participants in whom the study infusions were initiated. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175225, and is completed.

Findings

We recruited 294 participants between Nov 23, 2014, and Nov 10, 2017. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of 144 patients assigned to the deferoxamine mesylate group and 147 assigned to the placebo group. At day 90, among patients with available data for the primary outcome, 48 (34%) of 140 participants in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 47 (33%) of 143 patients in the placebo group, had modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0·6% [90% upper confidence bound 6·8%]). By day 90, 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) of 144 patients in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 78 serious adverse events were reported in 49 (33%) of 147 patients in the placebo group. Ten (7%) participants in the deferoxamine mesylate and 11 (7%) in the placebo group died. None of the deaths were judged to be treatment related.

Interpretation

Deferoxamine mesylate was safe. However, the primary result showed that further study of the efficacy of deferoxamine mesylate with anticipation that the drug would significantly improve the chance of good clinical outcome (ie, mRS score of 0-2) at day 90 would be futile.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health and US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.