Dabus Guilherme, Nogueira Raul G
Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Baptist Cardiac and Vascular Institute and Baptist Neuroscience Center, Miami, Fla., USA.
Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Ga., USA.
Interv Neurol. 2013 Oct;2(1):30-51. doi: 10.1159/000354755.
Cerebral vasospasm is one of the leading causes of morbi-mortality following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The aim of this article is to discuss the current status of vasospasm therapy with emphasis on endovascular treatment.
A comprehensive review of the literature obtained by a PubMed search. The most relevant articles related to medical, endovascular and alternative therapies were selected for discussion.
Current accepted medical options include the oral nimodipine and 'triple-H' therapy (hypertension, hypervolemia and hemodilution). Nimodipine remains the only modality proven to reduce the incidence of infarction. Although widely used, 'triple-H' therapy has not been demonstrated to significantly change overall outcome after cerebral vasospasm. Indeed, both induced hypervolemia and hemodilution may have deleterious effects, and more recent physiologic data favor normovolemia with induced hypertension or optimization of cardiac output. Endovascular options include percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA) and intra-arterial (IA) infusion of vasodilators. Multiple case reports and case series have been encountered in the literature using different drug regimens with diverse mechanisms of action. Compared with PTA, IA drug infusion has the advantages of distal penetration and a better safety profile. Its main disadvantages are the more frequent need for repeat treatments and its systemic hemodynamic repercussions. Alternative options using intraventricular/cisternal drug therapy and flow augmentation strategies have also shown possible benefits; however, their use is not yet as well established.
Blood pressure or cardiac output optimization should be the mainstay of hyperdynamic therapy. Endovascular treatment appears to have a positive impact on neurological outcome compared with the natural history of the disease. The role of intraventricular therapy and flow augmentation strategies in association with medical and endovascular treatment may, in the future, play a growing role in the management of patients with severe refractory vasospasm.
脑血管痉挛是动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血后导致病残和死亡的主要原因之一。本文旨在探讨血管痉挛治疗的现状,重点是血管内治疗。
通过PubMed检索对文献进行全面综述。选择与药物、血管内及其他治疗相关的最具相关性的文章进行讨论。
目前公认的药物治疗选择包括口服尼莫地平和“三高”疗法(高血压、高血容量和血液稀释)。尼莫地平仍然是唯一被证实可降低梗死发生率的治疗方式。尽管“三高”疗法被广泛应用,但尚未证明其能显著改变脑血管痉挛后的总体预后。实际上,诱导性高血容量和血液稀释都可能产生有害影响,最新的生理学数据支持在诱导性高血压或优化心输出量的情况下维持正常血容量。血管内治疗选择包括经皮腔内球囊血管成形术(PTA)和动脉内(IA)输注血管扩张剂。文献中出现了多篇使用不同作用机制的药物方案的病例报告和病例系列。与PTA相比,IA药物输注具有远端穿透性好和安全性更高的优点。其主要缺点是更频繁地需要重复治疗及其对全身血流动力学的影响。采用脑室内/脑池内药物治疗和血流增加策略的其他治疗选择也显示出可能有益;然而,它们的应用尚未得到充分确立。
血压或心输出量优化应是高动力治疗的主要手段。与疾病的自然病程相比,血管内治疗似乎对神经功能预后有积极影响。脑室内治疗和血流增加策略在药物及血管内治疗中的作用,未来可能在重度难治性血管痉挛患者的管理中发挥越来越重要的作用。