2011
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.68.12.1614-b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome and Hemorrhagic Events: Who Precedes Whom?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some authors have questioned whether RCVS (particularly RCVS-SAH) is different from aSAH or cSAH (ie, whether minor, often undetectable amounts of subarachnoid blood can trigger the vasoconstriction observed in RCVS). We have previously highlighted several differences between these conditions 19 ; in this present study, we provide evidence that RCVS-SAH differs from aSAH and cSAH in many respects, including mean age of patients, risk factors identified from the medical history and medications, clinical presentation, brain imaging, and cerebral angiographic findings. Our results suggest that the diffuse, multifocal, prolonged vasoconstriction in RCVS is unrelated to the presence or location of subarachnoid blood.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Some authors have questioned whether RCVS (particularly RCVS-SAH) is different from aSAH or cSAH (ie, whether minor, often undetectable amounts of subarachnoid blood can trigger the vasoconstriction observed in RCVS). We have previously highlighted several differences between these conditions 19 ; in this present study, we provide evidence that RCVS-SAH differs from aSAH and cSAH in many respects, including mean age of patients, risk factors identified from the medical history and medications, clinical presentation, brain imaging, and cerebral angiographic findings. Our results suggest that the diffuse, multifocal, prolonged vasoconstriction in RCVS is unrelated to the presence or location of subarachnoid blood.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%