Search

IMPORTANCE After aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, the use of lumbar drains has been suggested to decrease the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia and improve long-term outcome. OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of early lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage added to standard of care in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The EARLYDRAIN trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial with blinded end point evaluation conducted at 19 centers in Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. The first patient entered January 31, 2011, and the last on January 24, 2016, after 307 randomizations. Follow-up was completed July 2016. Query and retrieval of data on missing items in the case report forms was completed in September 2020. A total of 20 randomizations were invalid, the main reason being lack of informed consent. No participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Exclusion of patients was only performed in per-protocol sensitivity analysis. A total of 287 adult patients with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage of all clinical grades were analyzable. Aneurysm treatment with clipping or coiling was performed within 48 hours. INTERVENTION A total of 144 patients were randomized to receive an additional lumbar drain after aneurysm treatment and 143 patients to standard of care only. Early lumbar drainage with 5 mL per hour was started within 72 hours of the subarachnoid hemorrhage. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 3 to 6 (range, 0 to 6), obtained by masked assessors 6 months after hemorrhage. RESULTS Of 287 included patients, 197 (68.6%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 55 (48-63) years. Lumbar drainage started at a median (IQR) of day 2 (1-2) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. At 6 months, 47 patients (32.6%) in the lumbar drain group and 64 patients (44.8%) in the standard of care group had an unfavorable neurological outcome (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.98; absolute risk difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; P = .04). Patients treated with a lumbar drain had fewer secondary infarctions at discharge (41 patients [28.5%] vs 57 patients [39.9%]; risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.99; absolute risk difference, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0; P = .04). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In this trial, prophylactic lumbar drainage after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage lessened the burden of secondary infarction and decreased the rate of unfavorable outcome at 6 months. These findings support the use of lumbar drains after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01258257.

Background and Study Object Despite many drug trials, no substance has yet been identified that improves the outcome of severe head injury. The dual cannabinoid CB1/CB2 receptor agonist KN38-7271 mediates potent neuroprotection in animal models. We describe here the first randomized, double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled clinical phase IIa proof-of-concept trial to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and potential efficacy of a cannabinoid receptor agonist in humans. Patients and Methods Out of the 439, 97 comatose patients at 14 European neurosurgical centers met the inclusion criteria. KN38-7271 was administered within 4.5 hours of the injury, and the patients received 1000, 500 μg, or placebo. The primary analysis was pharmacokinetic; efficacy was measured by survival and by neurological improvement or deterioration 7 and 14 days and 1, 3, and 6 months after the injury. Intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) were analyzed from start of treatment to end of day 7. Results Survival rates within 1 month of the injury were significantly better in the treatment groups than in the placebo group (high-dose, Kaplan–Meier difference on day 30 + 0.12 with p = 0.043; low-dose, difference +0.15 with p = 0.011) but this effect was not seen after 6 months. Critical ICP and CPP were less extreme and less frequent in the treatment group. There were no severe and no serious adverse effects that could be attributed to KN38-7271. Conclusions KN38-7271 appeared beneficial in the acute early phase of the comatose patient after a head injury. Its use was safe and well tolerated by patients. These results may provide the basis for further phase II/III trials in larger study populations.

Introduction. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement is an indispensable tool for the diagnosis of abdominal hypertension. Different techniques have been described in the literature and applied in the clinical setting. Methods. A porcine model was created to simulate an abdominal compartment syndrome ranging from baseline IAP to 30 mmHg. Three different measurement techniques were applied, comprising telemetric piezoresistive probes at two different sites (epigastric and pelvic) for direct pressure measurement and intragastric and intravesical probes for indirect measurement. Results. The mean difference between the invasive IAP measurements using telemetric pressure probes and the IVP measurements was -0.58 mmHg. The bias between the invasive IAP measurements and the IGP measurements was 3.8 mmHg. Compared to the realistic results of the intraperitoneal and intravesical measurements, the intragastric data showed a strong tendency towards decreased values. The hydrostatic character of the IAP was eliminated at high-pressure levels. Conclusion. We conclude that intragastric pressure measurement is potentially hazardous and might lead to inaccurately low intra-abdominal pressure values. This may result in missed diagnosis of elevated abdominal pressure or even ACS. The intravesical measurements showed the most accurate values during baseline pressure and both high-pressure plateaus. Open-Access Publikationsfonds 2015 peerReviewed

BACKGROUND Monitoring of motor function during surgery for supratentorial tumors under general anesthesia applies either transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) or direct cortical stimulation (DCS) to elicit motor-evoked potentials. To date, there is no guideline that favor one method over the other. Therefore, we designed this randomized study to compare between both methods regarding the prediction of postoperative motor deficits and extent of tumor resection. METHODS This is a multicenter (six centers in Germany and one in Switzerland), double blind, parallel group, exploratory, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients without or with mild paresis, who are scheduled for surgical resection of motor-eloquent brain tumors under general anesthesia will be randomized to surgical resection under TES or surgical resection under DCS. The primary endpoint is sensitivity and specificity in prognosis of motor function 7 days after surgery. The main secondary endpoint is the extent of tumor resection. The study is planned to include 120 patients within 2 years. DISCUSSION The present exploratory study should compare TES and DCS regarding sensitivity and specificity in predicting postoperative motor deficit and extent of tumor resection to calculate the required number of patients in a confirmatory trial to test the superiority of one method over the other.