Abstract TP425: How do Different Outcome Measures Reflect Outcome After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Few treatments for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have been effective in randomized clinical studies. One reason may be that the outcome measures used are not sensitive enough to detect efficacy of treatments in this disease. This hypothesis was examined by comparing 6 outcome measures for 72 patients with aSAH. Patients with aSAH who were World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grades 2 to 4 with an external ventricular drain inserted as part of standard of care were entered in a Phase 1/2a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open-label, dose escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety and tolerability of a sustained release formulation of nimodipine (EG-1962, NEWTON study) in patients with aSAH. Clinical outcome was assessed at 90 days after aSAH using the extended Glasgow outcome scale (eGOS), modified Rankin scale (mRS), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), telephone interview of cognitive status (TICS), NIHSS and Barthel index. The relationship between each outcome measure and the eGOS was plotted on arithmetic graphs (Figure). The eGOS and mRS gave very similar results. More detailed cognitive assessments (MoCA, TICS) were more exponential in shape with more variability. The NIHSS and Barthel had outcomes clustered towards the highest ends of the scales with distributions that did not discriminate as much as the eGOS or mRS. The MoCA and TICS gave similar results. It was concluded that the eGOS or mRS produce a similar and varying range of outcomes after aSAH, whereas cognitive assessments like the MoCA and TICS and scales designed for ischemic stroke like the NIHSS and BI are less discriminatory of outcomes after aSAH.

    loading  Loading Related Articles