Predictors of full functional recovery in endovascularly treated patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Background/aim: The knowledge of factors influencing functional outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (ASH) has significantly increased in recent decades, still not enough. We aimed to identify the predictors of full functional recovery (FFR) in endovascularly treated patients with ASH. Materials and methods: A retrospective review was performed of adult patients who underwent endovascular treatment for ASH in a 5-year period. The association was evaluated of variables with FFR, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at a 3-month follow-up. Results: This study included 204 patients with a percentage of FFR of 62.7%. On univariate analysis, the following variables were associated with FFR: younger age, male sex, no history of hypertension, posterior circulation aneurysm, better modified-Fisher grade (mFG), better Hunt-Hess grade, better Glasgow Coma score, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and higher platelet-to-neutrophil ratio (PNR). On multivariate analysis, younger age (OR = 0.95, 95% Cl = 0.92–0.98, p = 0.003), better mFG (OR = 0.66, 95% Cl = 0.48–0.97, p = 0.03), lower PLR (OR = 0.993, 95% Cl = 0.990–0.997, p = 0.001), lower NLR (OR = 0.89, 95% Cl = 0.83–0.95, p = 0.01) and higher PNR (OR = 1.08, 95% Cl = 1.01–1.10, p = 0.01) showed the strongest association with FFR. Conclusion: With the administration of endovascular treatment, most of the patients with ASH can return to a normal productive life. Younger age, better mFG, lower PLR and NLR, as well as higher PNR, increase the likelihood of FFR.Key words: Subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral aneurysm, outcome, prediction

PDF

___

1. Qureshi AI, Vazquez G, Tariq N, Suri MF, Lakshminarayan K et al. Impact of International subarachnoid aneurysm trial results on treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States. Journal of Neurosurgery 2011; 114 (3): 834-841. doi: 10.3171/2010.6.JNS091486
2. Naval NS, Chang T, Caserta F, Kowalski RG, Carhuapoma JR et al. Improved aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage outcomes: a comparison of 2 decades at an academic center. Journal of Critical Care 2013; 28 (2): 182-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.05.008
3. Taylor CJ, Robertson F, Brealey D, O’shea F, Stephen T et al. Outcome in poor grade subarachnoid hemorrhage patients treated with acute endovascular coiling of aneurysms and aggressive intensive care. Neurocritical Care 2011; 14 (3): 341- 347. doi: 10.1007/s12028-010-9377-7
4. Schöller K, Massmann M, Markl G, Kunz M, Fesl G et al. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in elderly patients: longterm outcome and prognostic factors in an interdisciplinary treatment approach. Journal of Neurology 2013; 260 (4): 1052- 1060. doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6758-1
5. Fiehler J, Byrne JV. Factors affecting outcome after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Current Opinion in Neurology 2009; 22 (1): 103-108. doi: 10.1097/ WCO.0b013e32831af1c1
6. Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL, Schweizer TA. Cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke 2010; 41 (8): e519-536. doi: 10.1161/ STROKEAHA.110.581975
7. Jaja BN, Cusimano MD, Etminan N, Hanggi D, Hasan D et al. Clinical prediction models for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review. Neurocritical Care 2013; 18 (1): 143-153. doi: 10.1007/s12028-012-9792-z
8. Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Neutrophilto-lymphocyte ratio predicts the outcome of acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2016; 47 (6): 1654-1657. doi: 10.1161/ STROKEAHA.116.013627
9. Pegoli M, Mandrekar J, Rabinstein AA, Lanzino G. Predictors of excellent functional outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Journal of Neurosurgery 2015; 122 (2): 414-418. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.JNS14290
10. Zhang F, Li P, Zhang C, Wang L, Jing SQ. The prognosis factors for endovascular coiling of aneurysm in patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysm. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 2017; 28 (6): e535-538. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003818
11. Quinn TJ, Singh S, Lees KR, Bath PM et al. Validating and comparing stroke prognosis scales. Neurology 2017; 89 (10): 997-1002. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004332
12. Matsukawa H, Kamiyama H, Tsuboi T, Noda K, Ota N et al. Subarachnoid hemorrhage after surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Journal of Neurosurgery 2018; 129 (2): 490-497. doi: 10.3171/2017.3.JNS162984
13. Lovelock CE, Rinkel GJ, Rothwell PM. Time trends in outcome of subarachnoid hemorrhage: population-based study and systematic review. Neurology 2010; 74 (19): 1494-1501. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dd42b3
14. Giede-Jeppe A, Reichl J, Sprügel MI, Lücking H, Hoelter P et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an independent predictor for unfavorable functional outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Journal of Neurosurgery 2019; 132 (2): 400-407. doi: 10.3171/2018.9.JNS181975
15. Goehre F, Jahromi BR, Lehecka M, Lehto H, Kivisaari R et al. Posterior cerebral artery aneurysms: treatment and outcome analysis in 121 patients. World Neurosurgery 2016; 92: 521- 532. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.03.063
16. Zhao B, Yang H, Zheng K, Li Z, Xiong Y et al. Preoperative and postoperative predictors of long-term outcome after endovascular treatment of poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Journal of Neurosurgery 2017; 126 (6): 1764-1771. doi: 10.3171/2016.4.JNS152587
17. Ahmad S. Clinical outcome of endovascular coil embolization for cerebral aneurysms in Asian population in relation to risk factors: a 3-year retrospective analysis. BMC Surgery 2020; 20 (1): 104. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00756-1
18. Rosen DS, Macdonald RL. Subarachnoid hemorrhage grading scales: a systematic review. Neurocritical Care 2005; 2 (2): 110- 118. doi: 10.1385/NCC:2:2:110
19. Ois A, Vivas E, Figueras-Aguirre G, Guimaraens L, CuadradoGodia E et al. Misdiagnosis worsens prognosis in subarachnoid hemorrhage with good Hunt and Hess score. Stroke 2019; 50 (11): 3072-3076. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025520
20. Citerio G, Gaini SM, Tomei G, Stocchetti N. Management of 350 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhages in 22 Italian neurosurgical centers. Intensive Care Medicine 2007; 33 (9): 1580-1586. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0700-5
21. Park HK, Horowitz M, Jungreis C, Genevro J, Koebbe C et al. Periprocedural morbidity and mortality associated with endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2005; 26 (3): 506-514.
22. Altay T, Kang HI, Woo HH, Masaryk TJ, Rasmussen PA et al. Thromboembolic events associated with endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery 2011; 3 (2): 147-150. doi: 10.1136/jnis.2010.003616
23. Dinç H, Öztürk MH, Sari A, Çakir E, Gazioğlu G et al. Coil embolization in 481 ruptured intracranial aneurysms: angiographic and clinical results. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 2013; 19 (2): 165-172. doi: 10.4261/1305-3825. DIR.6197-12.1
24. Ihn YK, Shin SH, Baik SK, Choi IS. Complications of endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms: management and prevention. Interventional Neuroradiology 2018; 24 (3): 237-245. doi: 10.1177/1591019918758493
25. Tao C, Wang J, Hu X, Ma J, Li H et al. Clinical value of neutrophil to lymphocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratio after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocritical Care 2017; 26 (3): 393-401. doi: 10.1007/s12028-016-0332-0
26. Giede-Jeppe A, Bobinger T, Gerner ST, Sembill JA, Sprügel MI et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2017; 44 (1-2): 26-34. doi: 10.1159/000468996
27. Giede-Jeppe A, Madžar D, Sembill JA, Sprügel MI, Atay S et al. Increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with unfavorable functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Neurocritical Care 2020; 33 (1): 97-104. doi: 10.1007/s12028- 019-00859-5
28. Sehba FA, Mostafa G, Friedrich V Jr, Bederson JB. Acute microvascular platelet aggregation after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Journal of Neurosurgery 2005; 102 (6): 1094- 1100. doi: 10.3171/jns.2005.102.6.1094