BackgroundCerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) frequently manifest with haemorrhages. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been employed for CCM not suitable for resection. Its effect on reducing haemorrhage risk is still controversial. The aim of this study was to expand on the safety and efficacy of SRS for haemorrhagic CCM.MethodsThis retrospective multicentric study included CCM with at least one haemorrhage treated with single-session SRS. The annual haemorrhagic rate (AHR) was calculated before and after SRS. Recurrent event analysis and Cox regression were used to evaluate factors associated with haemorrhage. Adverse radiation effects (AREs) and occurrence of new neurological deficits were recorded.ResultsThe study included 381 patients (median age: 37.5 years (Q1–Q3: 25.8–51.9) with 414 CCMs. The AHR from diagnosis to SRS excluding the first haemorrhage was 11.08 per 100 CCM-years and was reduced to 2.7 per 100 CCM-years after treatment. In recurrent event analysis, SRS, HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), p<0.0001 was associated with a decreased risk of haemorrhage, and the presence of developmental venous anomaly (DVA) with an increased risk, HR 1.60 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.40), p=0.022. The cumulative risk of first haemorrhage after SRS was 9.4% (95% CI 6% to 12.6%) at 5 years and 15.6% (95% CI% 9 to 21.8%) at 10 years. Margin doses> 13 Gy, HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.20 to 4.32), p=0.012 and the presence of DVA, HR 2.08 (95% CI 1.00 to 4.31), p=0.049 were factors associated with higher probability of post-SRS haemorrhage. Post-SRS haemorrhage was symptomatic in 22 out of 381 (5.8%) patients, presenting with transient (15/381) or permanent (7/381) neurological deficit. ARE occurred in 11.1% (46/414) CCM and was responsible for transient neurological deficit in 3.9% (15/381) of the patients and permanent deficit in 1.1% (4/381) of the patients. Margin doses >13 Gy and CCM volume >0.7 cc were associated with increased risk of ARE.ConclusionSingle-session SRS for haemorrhagic CCM is associated with a decrease in haemorrhage rate. Margin doses ≤13 Gy seem advisable.
OBJECTIVE Approximately 10% of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have intracranial bleeding (complicated mTBI) and 3.5% eventually require neurosurgical intervention, which is mostly available at centers with a higher level of trauma care designation and often requires interhospital transfer. In 2018, the Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) were updated in the United States to guide emergency department care and patient disposition for complicated mild to moderate TBI. The aim of this study was to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the updated BIG (uBIG) for predicting the need for interhospital transfer in Canadian patients with complicated mTBI. METHODS This study took place at three level I trauma centers. Consecutive medical records of patients with complicated mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13–15) who were aged ≥ 16 years and presented between September 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a penetrating trauma and those who had a documented cerebral tumor or aneurysm were excluded. The primary outcome was a combination of neurosurgical intervention and/or mTBI-related death. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed. RESULTS A total of 477 patients were included, of whom 8.4% received neurosurgical intervention and 3% died as a result of their mTBI. Forty patients (8%) were classified as uBIG-1, 168 (35%) as uBIG-2, and 269 (56%) as uBIG-3. No patients in uBIG-1 underwent neurosurgical intervention or died as a result of their injury. This translates into a sensitivity for predicting the need for a transfer of 100% (95% CI 93.2%–100%) and a specificity of 9.4% (95% CI 6.8%–12.6%). Using the uBIG could potentially reduce the number of transfers by 6% to 25%. CONCLUSIONS The patients in uBIG-1 could be safely managed at their initial center without the need for transfer to a center with a higher level of neurotrauma care. Although the uBIG could decrease the number of transfers, further refinement of the criteria could improve its specificity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.