Cargando…

Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The STICH (Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage) I and II trials randomized patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) to early surgery or initial conservative treatment. Both were nonsignificant; possibly because surgery has minimal effect on reco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gregson, Barbara A., Mitchell, Patrick, Mendelow, A. David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6485298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30932784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022694
_version_ 1783414254457585664
author Gregson, Barbara A.
Mitchell, Patrick
Mendelow, A. David
author_facet Gregson, Barbara A.
Mitchell, Patrick
Mendelow, A. David
author_sort Gregson, Barbara A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The STICH (Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage) I and II trials randomized patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) to early surgery or initial conservative treatment. Both were nonsignificant; possibly because surgery has minimal effect on recovery, or because surgery benefits some and harms others. We introduce a new nonparametric method of analysis. The method is then applied to data from a third trial, STITCH(Trauma) (Surgical Trial in Traumatic Intracerebral Haemorrhage), which addressed a similar surgical question in head-injured patients. METHODS—: Data from 1541 patients from the STICH trials were analyzed using (1) standard meta-analysis of prognosis-based dichotomized outcome and prespecified standard subgroups of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): 3–8, 9–12, and 13–15; (2) new nonparametric regression of ranked Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale against ranked GCS and ranked volume; and (3) analysis (1) repeated using categories identified by analysis (2). RESULTS—: Standard meta-analysis showed more favorable outcomes, although nonsignificant, with surgery if presenting GCS was 9–12 (spontaneous ICH odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.48–1.03; P=0.07]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.18–1.26; P=0.14]). Ranked analysis showed a similar pattern of results for both spontaneous and traumatic ICH. Surgery was harmful for small lesions with increasing benefit for larger volumes. With GCS, surgery had little effect at either ends of the spectrum but suggested a beneficial effect in the range 10 to 13 (identified graphically). Repeating the meta-analysis with this categorization showed significant benefit for surgery (spontaneous odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51–1.00; P=0.05]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05–0.51; P=0.002]). CONCLUSIONS—: The nonsignificant results observed in the STICH trials are because of mixing patients who benefit from surgery with those who are harmed. Patients with a GCS 10–13 or a large ICH are likely to benefit from surgery. Our analysis showed a similar effect on traumatic ICH/contusion data and promises to be a valuable tool. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION—: URL: http://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifiers: ISRCTN19976990 (STITCH), ISRCTN22153967 (STICH II), and ISRCTN19321911 (STITCH[Trauma]).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6485298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64852982019-05-29 Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials Gregson, Barbara A. Mitchell, Patrick Mendelow, A. David Stroke Original Contributions BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The STICH (Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage) I and II trials randomized patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) to early surgery or initial conservative treatment. Both were nonsignificant; possibly because surgery has minimal effect on recovery, or because surgery benefits some and harms others. We introduce a new nonparametric method of analysis. The method is then applied to data from a third trial, STITCH(Trauma) (Surgical Trial in Traumatic Intracerebral Haemorrhage), which addressed a similar surgical question in head-injured patients. METHODS—: Data from 1541 patients from the STICH trials were analyzed using (1) standard meta-analysis of prognosis-based dichotomized outcome and prespecified standard subgroups of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): 3–8, 9–12, and 13–15; (2) new nonparametric regression of ranked Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale against ranked GCS and ranked volume; and (3) analysis (1) repeated using categories identified by analysis (2). RESULTS—: Standard meta-analysis showed more favorable outcomes, although nonsignificant, with surgery if presenting GCS was 9–12 (spontaneous ICH odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.48–1.03; P=0.07]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.18–1.26; P=0.14]). Ranked analysis showed a similar pattern of results for both spontaneous and traumatic ICH. Surgery was harmful for small lesions with increasing benefit for larger volumes. With GCS, surgery had little effect at either ends of the spectrum but suggested a beneficial effect in the range 10 to 13 (identified graphically). Repeating the meta-analysis with this categorization showed significant benefit for surgery (spontaneous odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51–1.00; P=0.05]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05–0.51; P=0.002]). CONCLUSIONS—: The nonsignificant results observed in the STICH trials are because of mixing patients who benefit from surgery with those who are harmed. Patients with a GCS 10–13 or a large ICH are likely to benefit from surgery. Our analysis showed a similar effect on traumatic ICH/contusion data and promises to be a valuable tool. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION—: URL: http://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifiers: ISRCTN19976990 (STITCH), ISRCTN22153967 (STICH II), and ISRCTN19321911 (STITCH[Trauma]). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019-05 2019-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6485298/ /pubmed/30932784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022694 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Stroke is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Contributions
Gregson, Barbara A.
Mitchell, Patrick
Mendelow, A. David
Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title_full Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title_fullStr Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title_full_unstemmed Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title_short Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage: New Analysis of the STICH, STICH II, and STITCH(Trauma) Randomized Trials
title_sort surgical decision making in brain hemorrhage: new analysis of the stich, stich ii, and stitch(trauma) randomized trials
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6485298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30932784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022694
work_keys_str_mv AT gregsonbarbaraa surgicaldecisionmakinginbrainhemorrhagenewanalysisofthestichstichiiandstitchtraumarandomizedtrials
AT mitchellpatrick surgicaldecisionmakinginbrainhemorrhagenewanalysisofthestichstichiiandstitchtraumarandomizedtrials
AT mendelowadavid surgicaldecisionmakinginbrainhemorrhagenewanalysisofthestichstichiiandstitchtraumarandomizedtrials