4.6 Article

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 840-855

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/ijs.12309

关键词

anticoagulation; antiepileptic treatment; antihypertensive treatment; intracranial hemorrhage; intracranial pressure; management

资金

  1. MRC [G1002605] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G1002605] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIntracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounted for 9% to 27% of all strokes worldwide in the last decade, with high early case fatality and poor functional outcome. In view of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of ICH, the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) has updated its evidence-based guidelines for the management of ICH. MethodA multidisciplinary writing committee of 24 researchers from 11 European countries identified 20 questions relating to ICH management and created recommendations based on the evidence in RCTs using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ResultsWe found moderate- to high-quality evidence to support strong recommendations for managing patients with acute ICH on an acute stroke unit, avoiding hemostatic therapy for acute ICH not associated with antithrombotic drug use, avoiding graduated compression stockings, using intermittent pneumatic compression in immobile patients, and using blood pressure lowering for secondary prevention. We found moderate-quality evidence to support weak recommendations for intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure to <140mmHg within six-hours of ICH onset, early surgery for patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score 9-12, and avoidance of corticosteroids. ConclusionThese guidelines inform the management of ICH based on evidence for the effects of treatments in RCTs. Outcome after ICH remains poor, prioritizing further RCTs of interventions to improve outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据