Combination of Intra-Hematomal Hypodensity on CT and BRAIN Scoring Improves Prediction of Hemorrhage Expansion in ICH.

BACKGROUND: Hematoma expansion (HE) occurs in 1/3 of ICH patients and is associated with poor outcome. Intra-hematomal hypodensity (IHH) on CT has been reported to predict HE, as has the "BRAIN" score. We sought to assess the predictive value of these markers alone and in combination. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center study of ICH patients with CT < 6 h from onset. Two blinded neurologists assessed IHH on initial CT. Two HE definitions were examined: > 6 ml and > 6 ml or > 33%. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between IHH and HE. Predictive value of the BRAIN score alone and integrated with IHH was assessed. RESULTS: In 122 included patients, median ICH volume was 13 ml, median time to CT 2.0 h; HE > 6 ml occurred in 31% and > 6 ml/> 33% in 43% of subjects. IHH were identified in 61% of patients with moderate inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.59). In multivariable analysis, IHH was associated with HE using > 6 ml definition (OR 8.3, 95% CI, 2.6-32.8, P < 0.001) but not using the > 6 ml/> 33% definition (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.84-4.3, P = 0.12). Rate of HE (> 6 ml) increased across increasing BRAIN score quartiles (Q1:11%, Q2:23%, Q3:43%, Q4:57%, P for trend < 0.001). Rate of HE > 6 ml in patients with BRAIN score ≥ 10 and IHH was 55%, with either alone was 33%, and with neither was 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Combining IHH on non-contrast CT and a simple clinical BRAIN score is a potentially powerful way to predict those patients at very high and very low risk of HE.

Safety of Endovascular Intervention for Stroke on Therapeutic Anticoagulation: Multicenter Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is contraindicated in therapeutically anti-coagulated patients. Such patients may be considered for endovascular intervention. However, there are limited data on its safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study of patients undergoing endovascular intervention for acute ischemic stroke while on therapeutic anticoagulation. We compared the observed rate of National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke defined symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) with risk-adjusted historical control rates of sICH after IV tPA using weighted averages of the hemorrhage after thrombolysis (HAT) and Multicenter Stroke Survey (MSS) prediction scores. We also performed a metaanalysis of studies assessing risk of sICH with endovascular intervention in patients on anticoagulation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 94 cases, mean age was 73 years and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 19. Anticoagulation consisted of warfarin (n = 51), dabigatran (n = 6), rivaroxaban (n = 13), apixaban (n = 1), IV heparin (n = 19), low molecular weight heparin (n = 3), and combined warfarin and IV heparin (n = 3). sICH was seen in 7 patients (7%, 95% confidence interval 4-15), all on warfarin. Predicted sICH rates for the cohort based on HAT and MSS scoring were 12% and 7%, respectively. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed no significant difference in sICH between patients undergoing endovascular intervention on anticoagulation and comparator groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular intervention in subjects on therapeutic anticoagulation appears reasonably safe, with a sICH rate similar to patients not on anticoagulation receiving IV tPA.

Gabapentin in Headache Disorders: What Is the Evidence?

OBJECTIVE: Gabapentin (GBP), originally an antiepileptic drug, is more commonly used in the treatment of pain, including headache disorders. Off-label GBP is used in headache disorders with some success, some failure, and much debate. Due to this ambiguity, a clinical evidence literature review was performed investigating GBP's efficacy in headache disorders. METHODS: Bibliographic reference searches for GBP use in headache disorders were performed in PUBMED and OVID Medline search engines from January 1, 1983 to August 31, 2014. Based on abstracts read by two reviewers, references were excluded if: GBP was not a study compound or headache symptoms were not studied. The resulting references were then read, reviewed, and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles pertinent to GBP use in headache disorders were retained. Eight headache clinical trials were quality of evidence Class 2 or higher based on American Academy of Neurology criteria. Seven of the eight clinical trials showed statistically significant clinical benefit from GBP in various headache syndromes (though modest affects at times). One study, Mathew et al., had concerns about intention-treat analysis breaches and primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite the conflicting evidence surrounding select studies, a significant amount of evidence shows that GBP has benefit for a majority of primary headache syndromes, including chronic daily headaches. GBP has some efficacy in migraine headache, but not sufficient evidence to suggest primary therapy. When primary headache treatments fail, a GBP trial may be considered in the individual patient.

Beyond neuropathic pain: gabapentin use in cancer pain and perioperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin (GBP), originally an antiepileptic drug, is more commonly used in the treatment of neuropathic pain. In recent years, GBP has been used as an adjunct or primary therapy in non-neuropathic pain, most commonly for the treatment of perioperative and cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a clinical evidence literature review of GBP's use in perioperative pain and cancer pain. METHODS: Using PUBMED and OVID Medline databases, keyword searches for surgery and cancer in reference to GBP and pain were carried out. Nonblinded studies and case reports that did not present a unique finding were excluded. Studies that focused only on neuropathic pain were also excluded. RESULTS: An initial 142 references focusing on GBP's use in surgical pain and cancer pain were identified. Of these, 48 studies were quality of evidence at a level of II-2 or higher. DISCUSSION: Although efficacy varies, multiple well-designed clinical trials have demonstrated reduced pain and analgesic use with otolaryngology, orthopedic, mastectomy, and abdominal/pelvic surgical perioperative use of GBP, whereas there is limited or no efficacy for cardiothoracic surgery. Cancer pain studies have had greater design variability, often nonblinded, with pain benefit being mild to moderate, and more efficacious with partial neuropathic pain quality. Overall, GBP seems to have significant benefit in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain associated with the perioperative period and cancer. Considering its favorable side effect profile, GBP represents a beneficial pain adjunctive therapy, beyond neuropathic symptoms.