RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Various analgesics are used to control intense headaches in patients following subarachnoid hemorrhage. In addition to pain control, it has been shown that some analgesics can affect various pathophysiological cascades. Therefore, we devised a study to assess whether the use of metamizole has a significant impact on the development of ischemic complications, hydrocephalus, and the overall outcome in patients following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in the context of the other non-opioids and opioids effects. METHODS: In our retrospective, single-center cohort study, we enrolled 192 patients diagnosed with subarachnoid hemorrhage. We recorded their initial clinical status, comorbidities, and the daily dosage of analgesics over 14 days of hospitalization after the onset of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Using univariate and subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis, we assessed the influence of various factors, including analgesics, on the development of delayed cerebral ischemia and hydrocephalus, as well as on 2-week and 6-month outcomes. RESULTS: Although the administration of non-opioids, in general, had no effect on the development of delayed cerebral ischemia or hydrocephalus, the use of metamizole as the main analgesic was associated with a significantly lower chance of poor outcome at both 2-weeks and 6-months, as well as the development of delayed cerebral ischemia. As opioids were indicated primarily for analgosedation in mechanically ventilated patients with poor clinical status, their usage was associated with a significantly higher chance of poor outcome, delayed cerebral ischemia, and hydrocephalus. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the prescription of metamizole may be associated with better outcomes and a lower chance of delayed cerebral ischemia development in patients after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Considering the retrospective nature of our study and the limited worldwide availability of metamizole due to its prohibition in some countries, our results do not demonstrate a clear benefit but rather justify the need for subsequent prospective studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To analyze the reasons and patient-related and injury-related risk factors for reoperation after surgery for acute subdural hematoma (SDH) and the effects of reoperation on treatment outcome. METHODS: Among adult patients operated on for acute SDH between 2013 and 2017, patients reoperated within 14 days after the primary surgery were identified. In all patients, parameters were identified that related to the patient (age, anticoagulation, antiplatelet, and antiepileptic treatment, and alcohol intoxication), trauma (Glasgow Coma Score, SDH thickness, midline shift, midline shift /hematoma thickness rate, other surgical lesion, primary surgery-trephination, craniotomy, or decompressive craniotomy), and Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS). The reasons for reoperation and intervals between primary surgery and reoperation were studied. RESULTS: Of 86 investigated patients, 24 patients were reoperated (27.9%), with a median interval of 2 days between primary surgery and reoperation. No significant differences in patients and injury-related factors were found between reoperated and non-reoperated patients. The rate of primary craniectomies was higher in non-reoperated patients (P = 0.066). The main indications for reoperation were recurrent /significant residual SDH (10 patients), contralateral SDH (5 patients), and expansive intracerebral hematoma or contusion (5 patients). The final median GOS was 3 in non-reoperated and 1.5 in reoperated patients, with good outcomes in 41.2% of non-reoperated and 16.7% of reoperated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation after acute SDH surgery is associated with a significantly worse prognosis. Recurrent /significant residual SDH and contralateral SDH are the most frequently found reasons for reoperation. None of the analyzed parameters were significant reoperation predictors.
