Klimo Paul, Kestle John R W, MacDonald Joel D, Schmidt Richard H
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132-2303, USA.
J Neurosurg. 2004 Feb;100(2):215-24. doi: 10.3171/jns.2004.100.2.0215.
Cerebral vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) continues to be a major source of morbidity in patients despite significant clinical and basic science research. Efforts to prevent vasospasm by removing spasmogens from the subarachnoid space have produced mixed results. The authors hypothesize that lumbar cisternal drainage can remove blood from the basal subarachnoid spaces more effectively than an external ventricular drain (EVD). This non-randomized, controlled-cohort study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of a lumbar drain in patients with SAH compared with those in whom an EVD or no form of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage was used to prevent the development of clinical vasospasm and its sequelae.
The authors collected data on 266 patients with nontraumatic SAH who were admitted to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center between January 1994 and January 2003. Of these, 167 met the study entry criteria. The treatment group consisted of 81 patients in whom a lumbar drain had been placed for CSF shunting, whereas the control group was composed of 86 patients who received no form of CSF drainage or who were treated solely with an EVD. Primary outcome measures were as follows: 1) clinically evident vasospasm; 2) the need for endovascular intervention; 3) vasospasm-induced infarction; 4) disposition at time of discharge; and 5) Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at 1 to 3 months postdischarge. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and the need for CSF shunting. The presence of a lumbar drain conferred a statistically significant protective and beneficial effect across all outcome measures, reducing the incidence of clinical vasospasm from 51 to 17%, the need for angioplasty from 45 to 17%, and the occurrence of vasospastic infarction from 27 to 7% (all p < or = 0.001-0.008). Patients in the treatment group were more likely to be discharged home (54% compared with 25%, p = 0.002) and to have a GOS score of 5 at follow up (71% compared with 35%, p < 0.001). The mean number of days spent in the intensive care unit and in the hospital overall was also fewer in the treatment group. A similar degree of benefit was found in patients with different Fisher grades and regardless of whether an EVD was needed on presentation, both by subgroup analysis and multivariate logistic regression modeling. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of patients requiring a shunt. Complications with lumbar drains were rare and yielded no permanent sequelae.
Shunting of CSF through a lumbar drain after an SAH markedly reduces the risk of clinically evident vasospasm and its sequelae, shortens hospital stay, and improves outcome. Its beneficial effects are probably mediated through the removal of spasmogens that exist in the CSF. The results of this study warrant a randomized clinical trial, which is currently under way.
尽管进行了大量临床和基础科学研究,但蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)后的脑血管痉挛仍是患者发病的主要原因。通过从蛛网膜下腔清除血管痉挛原预防血管痉挛的努力,结果喜忧参半。作者推测,腰大池引流比脑室外引流(EVD)能更有效地清除基底池蛛网膜下腔的血液。本非随机对照队列研究旨在评估SAH患者使用腰大池引流与使用EVD或不进行任何形式脑脊液(CSF)引流预防临床血管痉挛及其后遗症的效果。
作者收集了1994年1月至2003年1月间入住犹他大学健康科学中心的266例非创伤性SAH患者的数据。其中,167例符合研究纳入标准。治疗组由81例行腰大池引流进行CSF分流的患者组成,而对照组由86例未进行任何形式CSF引流或仅接受EVD治疗的患者组成。主要观察指标如下:1)临床明显的血管痉挛;2)血管内介入治疗的需求;3)血管痉挛性梗死;4)出院时的处置情况;5)出院后1至3个月的格拉斯哥预后评分(GOS)。次要观察指标包括住院时间和CSF分流的需求。在所有观察指标上,腰大池引流均具有统计学显著的保护和有益作用,将临床血管痉挛的发生率从51%降至17%,血管成形术的需求从45%降至17%,血管痉挛性梗死的发生率从27%降至7%(所有p≤0.001 - 0.008)。治疗组患者更有可能出院回家(54%对比25%,p = 0.002),且随访时GOS评分为5分的比例更高(71%对比35%,p < 0.001)。治疗组在重症监护病房和医院的平均住院天数也更少。通过亚组分析和多因素逻辑回归模型发现,不同Fisher分级的患者以及无论入院时是否需要EVD,均有类似程度的获益。两组在需要分流的患者方面无统计学差异。腰大池引流的并发症罕见,且无永久性后遗症。
SAH后通过腰大池进行CSF分流可显著降低临床明显血管痉挛及其后遗症的风险,缩短住院时间,并改善预后。其有益作用可能是通过清除CSF中存在的血管痉挛原介导的。本研究结果值得进行一项随机临床试验,该试验目前正在进行中。