1Department of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka.
2Department of Clinical Trials and Research, National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Centre, Nagoya.
J Neurosurg. 2018 May;128(5):1318-1326. doi: 10.3171/2016.12.JNS161039. Epub 2017 May 26.
OBJECTIVE Although heterogeneity in patient outcomes following subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) has been observed across different centers, the relative merits of clipping and coiling for SAH remain unknown. The authors sought to compare the patient outcomes between these therapeutic modalities using a large nationwide discharge database encompassing hospitals with different comprehensive stroke center (CSC) capabilities. METHODS They analyzed data from 5214 patients with SAH (clipping 3624, coiling 1590) who had been urgently hospitalized at 393 institutions in Japan in the period from April 2012 to March 2013. In-hospital mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, cerebral infarction, complications, hospital length of stay, and medical costs were compared between the clipping and coiling groups after adjustment for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics by using mixed-model analysis. RESULTS Patients who had undergone coiling had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (12.4% vs 8.7%, OR 1.3) and a shorter median hospital stay (32.0 vs 37.0 days, p < 0.001) than those who had undergone clipping. The respective proportions of patients discharged with mRS scores of 3-6 (46.4% and 42.9%) and median medical costs (thousands US$, 35.7 and 36.7) were not significantly different between the groups. These results remained robust after further adjustment for CSC capabilities as a hospital-related covariate. CONCLUSIONS Despite the increasing use of coiling, clipping remains the mainstay treatment for SAH. Regardless of CSC capabilities, clipping was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality, similar unfavorable functional outcomes and medical costs, and a longer hospital stay as compared with coiling in 2012 in Japan. Further study is required to determine the influence of unmeasured confounders.
尽管在不同中心观察到蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)患者的预后存在异质性,但夹闭术和血管内介入治疗(coiling)对 SAH 的相对疗效仍不明确。作者旨在使用包含不同综合卒中中心(CSC)能力的医院的大型全国性出院数据库,比较这两种治疗方法的患者结局。
作者分析了 2012 年 4 月至 2013 年 3 月期间在日本 393 家医疗机构紧急住院的 5214 例 SAH 患者(夹闭术 3624 例,血管内介入治疗 1590 例)的数据。采用混合模型分析,调整患者水平和医院水平的特征后,比较夹闭术组和血管内介入治疗组之间的住院死亡率、改良 Rankin 量表(mRS)评分、脑梗死、并发症、住院时间和医疗费用。
与夹闭术组相比,血管内介入治疗组的住院死亡率显著更高(12.4%比 8.7%,OR 1.3),中位住院时间更短(32.0 天比 37.0 天,p<0.001)。两组出院时 mRS 评分 3-6 分的患者比例(46.4%和 42.9%)和中位医疗费用(千美元,35.7 和 36.7)无显著差异。当进一步将 CSC 能力作为医院相关协变量进行调整后,这些结果仍然稳健。
尽管血管内介入治疗的应用日益增多,但夹闭术仍然是治疗 SAH 的主要方法。与血管内介入治疗相比,在 2012 年日本,夹闭术与住院死亡率降低相关,功能结局不良和医疗费用相似,且住院时间更长。需要进一步研究以确定未测量混杂因素的影响。