Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care unit: a single-center retrospective study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2963410/v1

Download PDF

Article

Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care unit: a single-center retrospective study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2963410/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) represent a group with distinctive characteristics and few data are available on long-term outcome in this population. We conducted a retrospective study in an Italian intensive care unit. All patients with non-traumatic SAH (ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 430) admitted to ICU were included. Disability and quality of life were evaluated via telephone interview after 12-15 months after initial bleeding using GOSE and EuroQoL, respectively. Baseline and clinical course characteristics were analyzed to evaluate relation with poor outcome defined as GOSE ≤ 3. Final population consisted of thirty-eight patients. Twenty-four patients (63.2%) had favourable outcome (GOSE ≥ 4). Among 29 patients (76.3%) who survived at 1-year, median EQ-5D Index was 0.743 (IQR 0.287), while median EQ-VAS was 74.79 (IQR 18.5). Median EQ-5D Index and median EQ-VAS were higher among patients with favorable outcome (EQ-5D Index p=0.037, EQ-VAS p=0.003). Among baseline characteristics, only HH scale showed a significant relation with disability at one year (p=0.033). Between complications occurred during ICU-stay only early HICP was related with unfavourable outcome (p=0.028). Higher HH scale and early HICP were related with unfavourable outcome. Among patients with unfavourable outcome, quality of life has a broad range of variability and this result should be taken into account when reporting patient-centred outcomes.

Health sciences/Neurology/Neurological disorders/Brain injuries

Health sciences/Neurology/Neurological disorders/Cerebrovascular disorders

Health sciences/Neurology/Neurological disorders/Neurovascular disorders

Non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a life-threatening emergency caused by bleeding in the subarachnoid space caused mainly by a ruptured aneurysm¹. Despite recent advances in subarachnoid hemorrhage treatment, overall mortality and severe disability remain high and this represents a major public health concern since the population affected is younger compared to other kinds of stroke. As shown in the Swiss SOS study, of all patients affected by SAH, 1 in 10 patients survived in a dependent state at 1 year, while 22% of patients died within one year². Furthermore, among SAH survivors with good functional outcomes, quality of life is often impaired.
The pathophysiology of brain injury in SAH patients is extremely complex and not fully understood. The main determinants of brain injury are early brain injury (EBI) and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI)³. EBI encompasses several disorders occurring within the first 72 h following the aneurysm rupture. Extravasation of blood into the subarachnoid space causes an increase in intracranial pressure (ICP) and consequent reduction of cerebral blood flow and transient global cerebral ischemia. Moreover, hydrocephalus could represent a life-threatening emergency in the acute phase and could aggravate the injury. Other mechanisms leading to poor outcome are vasospasm and DCI³. Even though cerebral vasospasm has been considered the main determinant of DCI, recent data show that pathophysiology is far more complex than once thought; in fact, cortical spreading depression, microthrombosis, and impaired collateral circulation could contribute to DCI and consequent brain tissue infarction⁴.
Predicting outcomes among critical care patients is difficult: advances in medicine have reduced short-term mortality from critical illness despite an increasing number of older patients, but this poses many questions about the cost of survival. As widely reported, patients surviving critical illness develop long-lasting impairments affecting physical, cognitive and/or mental health status⁵. Furthermore, among neurocritical care patients, the burden of injury can be significant on long-term outcomes and this should be considered since the dichotomy survived/death can’t fully describe the impact of the disease on patients. Long-term outcome in SAH is mainly inferred from randomized control trial cohorts, and even fewer data are available from patients with poor grade SAH admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). A recent French study showed as only two third of patients survive at one year, and only one-third of them has a good outcome⁶.

As highlighted by several organizations, including WHO, disability is just a partial description of the heath status of a patient⁷; the patients’ experiences of disability, her/his adaptation, resilience and the environment contribute defining patient’s quality of life⁸. Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), its extended form (GOSE) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) are the most used tools to evaluate disability after SAH, while Short Form (36) Health Survey and EuroQoL are the most used to evaluate the quality of life in this group of patients⁹. Despite patient-centred outcomes are recommended measures, to our knowledge there are no studies that evaluate relationship between clinical presentation and long-term disability and quality of life in SAH patients admitted to ICU. Our study aims to describe the long-term outcome and quality of life of patients affected by SAH admitted to our ICU and to establish if there is a relationship between outcome and initial clinical presentation or DCI.

This is a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study. We retrospectively analyzed our electronic clinical records. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of AUSL Romagna (approval number 3041, 11/06/2021). Informed consent was obtained from all the patients. This study adheres to the applicable STROBE guidelines¹⁰.

Study population

We enrolled all the patients admitted to our ICU from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 with a diagnosis o SAH according to European Guidelines¹¹.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

diagnosis of SAH (ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 430, nontraumatic SAH, unspecified) at admission in the ICU within the period of the study.
Age ≥ 18 years-old at follow-up

Patients who were not suitable for treatment due to catastrophic brain injury were excluded from data analysis. Patients who were lost to follow-up were not included in the main analysis. Patients that were not directly admitted to ICU after aneurysm procedure exclusion were not included.

Data collection

The following data were extracted from clinical records:

- Baseline data: age, sex, history of smoking, chronic arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, WFNS scale, HH scale, mFS, GCS at admission.

- Aneurysm treatment: endovascular vs neurosurgical, requiring for external ventricular drain (EVD).

- Complication occurred during ICU stay: Early (<24 h) intracranial hypertension, hydrocephalus, late (>24h) intracranial hypertension, seizures, central neurological fever, hyponatremia, nimodipine interruption due to hypotension, increased middle cerebral artery (MCA) mean flow velocity, vasospasm location, impaired CT perfusion, induced hypertension therapy, endovascular vasospasm treatment.

- Outcome measures: hospital length of stay, 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), 12-month EuroQoL-5D-3L Index (EQ-5D Index) and EQ-VAS.

General management

Aneurysm exclusion was performed as soon as possible. The type of securing procedure was decided after a multidisciplinary discussion between neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons and intensivists. EVD was placed in case of acute hydrocephalus, HICP, or for surgical needs. All patients with GCS ≤ 8, delayed awakening after procedure or critical medical condition were admitted to ICU. In all patients a CT scan was obtained within 24 hours after aneurysm exclusion.

Management of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia

Nimodipine was administered orally 60 mg q4h. If patients showed poor tolerance to nimodipine developing hypotension, nimodipine administration was suspended. Sedation was suspended as soon as possible in all the patients without HICP, delirium, hemodynamic instability or acute respiratory failure, while TCD monitoring through the acoustic transtemporal window was performed daily to detect ultrasonographic vasospasm¹². In case of clinical deterioration or ultrasonographic vasospasm, supported by clinical judgment, a CT angiography/CT perfusion or cerebral arteriography was obtained. Patients with vasospasm/DCI were treated with blood pressure augmentation. In case of refractory vasospasm/DCI endovascular rescue therapy was considered.

Complications were defined as follows:

High intracranial pressure (HICP): was defined as intracranial pressure > 20 mmHg sustained for a period > 5 minutes^13,14. If it occurred within 24 hours from admission it was defined early HICP, if it occurred after this period it was defined as late HICP.
Seizures: EEG were performed as early as possible in comatose patients. Electrographic and electroclinical seizures, electrographic status epilepticus and electroclinical status epilepticus were diagnosed according to the current American Clinical Neurophysiology Society guidelines¹⁵. Seizures were treated with antiepileptic drugs and, in most severe cases, with deep sedation. EEG during sedation holiday was performed to evaluate efficacy of antiepileptic therapy.
Central neurological fever: central neurologic fever was defined on clinical judgment accordingly to the criteria reported by Hoker et al¹⁶.
Hyponatremia: patients requiring sodium implementation to maintain serum level within normal range.
Symptomatic vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia: accordingly with Rass V. et al we used the following definition^17,18:

Clinical deterioration: New focal neurological deficit OR GCS 2 points OR NIHSS 2 points once excluded other causes (e.g., fever, hyponatremia, hydrocephalus).
Angiographic vasospasm was defined as a reduction in arteries diameter of at least one-third, measured on either CTA or digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) was defined as a delayed clinical deterioration due to ischemia (focal neurological impairment or a decrease of at least 2 points on the GCS that lasts for at least 1 hour that cannot be attributed to another cause).
Delayed cerebral infarction (DCIn) was defined as an infarction on CT scan or MRI scans performed within 6 weeks after SAH, absent from the scan performed between 24 and 48 hours after aneurysm occlusion, and not attributable to another cause: aneurysm-securing procedure or EVD placement.

Outcome and telephone interview

Hospital length of stay (H-LOS) was obtained from electronic health-data records. Days of H-LOS were considered from admission to one of these possible outcomes: death, discharge home, discharge to rehabilitation institutes.

Telephone interviews were performed between 12 and 15 months after initial bleeding by two operators to evaluate outcome. When patients were unable to reply to the survey, the patient’s caregiver was interviewed. Degree of disability and survival were measured using the GOSE¹⁹. Favourable outcome was defined as GOSE ≥ 4, while patients with GOSE ≤3 as unfavourable outcome²⁰. Quality of life was evaluated using EQ-5D-3L²¹. The EQ-5D Index scores were calculated from the vectors by using the UK tariff²². The nominal range of the EQ-5D Index scores is 0 to 1, but negative scores as low as−0.59 are possible for health states deemed to be worse than death. The EQ-VAS, instead, records the patient’s self-rated health on a 0-100 scale where 0 represents “the worst health you can imagine” while 100 is the “best health you can imagine”. When the patients are unable to answer, it is asked to caregivers to give the answer the patient would have given.

Endpoints

Objectives our study were:

to describe the long-term outcome of patients admitted to ICU following SAH;
to describe quality of life of patients admitted to ICU following SAH.

The secondary objective of the study was to establish if there is a correlation between baseline characteristics, clinical course and outcome.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the software IBM SPSS 22.0. Data are reported as mean and standard deviation (SD), median, and interquartile range (IQR), number and percentage (N, %), depending on the underlying distribution.

Independent Student’s t test, Mann Whitney U test, Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to test any difference between the “favourable “and “unfavourable “groups.

Secondly, to test correlations between different variables we measured Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Baseline data

Thirty-eight patients were eligible for statistical analysis (Figure 1).

Table 1 summarizes main baseline characteristics.

Twenty-four (63.2%) patients were female. Median age was 56 years old (IQR 20). The median GCS on arrival was 11 (IQR 8.25).

There were no age and sex differences between favourable/unfavourable outcome groups. Comorbidities evaluated in our study did not show any difference among the two groups.

One patient had no GCS reported on the record. This patient was included in the primary outcome analysis, but it was excluded in the secondary outcome analysis requiring that data. GCS at admission was lower in the unfavourable outcome group, but it did not show a linear relation with GOSE.

WFNS scale, HH scale and mFS are summarized in table 1.

In our cohort of patients only HH scale shown a significant relation with disability at one year.

Table 1: relation between baseline characteristics at admission and outcome.
					Total		Favourable*	Unfavourable*		p value	Missing
Female	N (%)				24 (63.2)		18 (75.0)	6 (25.0)		0.081	-
Male	N (%)				14 (36.8)		6 (42.9)	8 (57.1)
Current smoking	N (%)				11 (28.9)		6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)		0.493
Chronic hypertension	N (%)				21 (55.3)		13 (61.9)	8 (38.1)		0.859	-
Type II Diabetes	N (%)				2 (5.3)		2 (100)	-		0.267	-
Age	Median (IQR)				58 (20)		53.5 (17)	60 (19)		0.098	-
Glasgow Come Scale	N (%)					37	23 (62.1)	14 (37.8)		0.156	1
	Median (IQR)					11 (8.25)	13 (5.5)	6 (11)
WFNS scale	1			N (%)		10 (27.0)	6 (60)		4 (40)	0.078	1
	2			N (%)		5 (13.5)	5 (100)		-
	3			N (%)		7 (18.9)	5 (71.4)		2 (28.6)
	4		N (%)			5 (13.5)	4 (80)		1 (20)
	5		N (%)			10 (27.0)	3 (30)		7 (70)
Hunt-Hess scale	1	N (%)				-	-		-	0.033	1
	2	N (%)				11 (29.7)	7 (63.6)		4 (26.4)
	3	N (%)				9 (24.3)	9 (100)		-
	4	N (%)				3 (8.1)	1 (33.3)		2 (66.7)
	5	N (%)				14 (37.8)	6 (42.9)		14 (37.8)
mFisher scale	1	N (%)				-	-		-	0.165	-
	2	N (%)				6 (15.9)	5 (83.3)		1 (16.7)
	3	N (%)				3 (7.9)	3 (100)		-
	4	N (%)				29 (76.3)	16 (55.2)		13 (44.8)

* Percentages in the columns “favourable” and “unfavourable” refer to the variable analyzed, not to the overall population

Treatment

Univariate analysis showed no difference in treatment in our population.

One patient did not receive any treatment because it was not detected any lesion (SAH sine materia).

Twenty-two (57.9%) patients had hydrocephalus at admission. EVD was placed in 23 patients (60.5%). In one patient EVD was placed not to treat hydrocephalus but for surgical purposes.

Complications

Table 2: relation between clinical course in ICU and outcome
			Total		Favourable*	Unfavourable*	p value	missing
Treatment	Endovascular	N (%)	19 (51.3)		11 (57.9)	8 (42.1)	0.582	1
	Surgical	N (%)	18 (48.6)		12 (66.7)	6 (33.3)
Hydrocephalus		N (%)	22 (57.9)		13 (59.1)	9 (40.9)	0.542	-
Neurological fever		N (%)	27 (71.0)		18 (66.7)	9 (33.3)	0.482
Early HICP (<24h admission)		N (%)	11 (28.9)		4 (36.4)	7 (63.6)	0.028	-
Late HICP (>24h admission)		N (%)	10 (26.3)		4 (40)	6 (60)	0.077	-
Hyponatremia		N(%)	18 (47.4)		12 (66.7)	6 (33.3)	0.671
Seizures		N (%)	5 (13.6)		3 (60.0)	2 (40.0)	0.569	-
Nimodipine interruption		N (%)	12 (31.6)		9 (75.0)	3 (25.0)	0.309	-
Clinical deterioration		N (%)	7 (18.4)		5 (71.4)	2 (28.6)	0.693	-
TCD Vmean MCA > 120 cm/sec		N (%)	16 (42.1)		10 (62.5)	6 (37.5)	0.942	-
TCD Vmean MCA > 160 cm/sec		N (%)	12 (31.6)		8 (66.7)	4 (33.3)	0.760	-
TCD Vmean MCA > 200 cm/sec		N (%)	8 (21.0)		6 (75.0)	2 (25.0)	0.434	-
Vasospasm (MRA/CTA or catheter angiography)		N (%)	13 (34.2)		9 (69.2)	4 (30.8)	0.931
Impaired CT/MR perfusion		N (%)	4 (10.5)		2 (50)	2 (50)	0.409
Hospital length of stay (H-LOS)		Median (IQR)		22 (12)	19.5 (13)	22.5 (8)	0.540

* Percentages in the columns “favourable” and “unfavourable” refer to the variable analyzed, not to the overall population

Table 2 summarizes relation between clinical course in ICU and outcome.

Among complications occurred during ICU-stay only early HICP was related with unfavourable outcome (p=0.028).

Eleven (28.9%) patients developed early HICP, while ten (26.3%) developed late HICP. Intracranial hypertension was treated implementing sedation, with hyperosmolar therapy, CSF withdrawal, normo-hypocapnia and, in most extreme cases, with surgical decompression.

Vasospasm and DCI

Seven patients (18.4%) showed clinical deterioration defined as new focal neurological deficit or loss of 2 points on GCS or 2 points on NIHSS. All of them had an increase in MCA mean flow velocities of at least 120 cm/sec.

Of the sixteen patients with MCA mean flow velocities > 120 cm/s, CT angiography and/or arteriography were performed in fifteen patients (39.5%). Vasospasm was confirmed on CTA/arteriography in thirteen patients (34.2%). Twelve patients (31.6%) required induced therapeutic hypertension. Nimodipine was interrupted in twelve patients (31.6%) due to poor tolerance.

Only four patients (10.5%) showed impaired perfusion on CT scan. Of the four patients with impaired CT perfusion, three patients underwent endovascular rescue treatment. Only one patient, the one with impaired CT perfusion who did not undergo to endovascular rescue therapy, developed delayed cerebral infarction (DCIn).

Outcome

Median H-LOS was 22 days (IQR 12) and we did not find any significantly differences among the two groups [19.5 (IQR 13) vs 22.5 (IQR 8), p=0.540].

Long-term neurological outcome of the 38 patients is displayed on table three. Twenty-four patients (63.2%) had favourable outcome (GOSE ≥ 4). GOSE at one year is summarized on Table 3.

Table 3: GOSE at one year

	GOSE at 1-year	N (%)
Unfavourable outcome	1	9 (23.7)
	2	1 (2.6)
	3	4 (10.5)
Favourable outcome	4	5 (13.2)
	5	1 (2.6)
	6	5 (13.3)
	7	8 (21.0)
	8	5 (13.2)

Quality of life was evaluated among patients who were alive at 1-year.

Among 29 patients (76.3%) survived at 1-year, median EQ-5D Index was 0.743 (IQR 0.287), while median EQ-VAS was 74.79 (IQR 18.5). Median EQ-5D Index and median EQ-VAS were higher among patients with favourable outcome [EQ-5D Index 0.796 (IQR 0.2) vs -0.331 (IQR 1.0) p=0.037], [EQ-VAS 80 (IQR 20) vs 50 (IQR 37.5) p=0.003].

Relations between GOSE and EQ-5D Index and EQ-VAS are shown in Table 4 and figure 2.

Table 4: Relation between GOSE and EQ-Index
GOSE	EQ-Index		EQ-VAS
2	-0.331 (0)	p = 0.051	20 (0)	p = 0.019
3	0.144 (1.2)		50 (30)
4	0.587 (0.45)		70 (7.5)
5	0.587 (0)		96 (0)
6	0.812 (0.38)		85 (18.75)
7	0.83 (0.18)		80 (15)
8	0.812 (0.22)		88 (16.25)

Data are reported as Median and Interquartile Range (IQR)

To our knowledge, this is the first study that describes long-term disability and quality of life of SAH patients admitted to ICU as primary outcome.

As highlighted by several papers, patient-centred outcomes are key elements in clinical studies^23,24.

Regarding disability, the study of Chalard K. et al. is the only one that evaluates long-term disability in a cohort of SAH patients admitted to ICU. This study showed a higher incidence of poor outcome compared to our cohort⁶.

There are some reasons that could explain these findings: first of all, we used a different scale to evaluate disability compared to the study reported above. We used GOSE rather than mRS because in our centre is the most used scale to evaluate long-term outcome in patients with acute brain injury and, with GOS, it has been widely used in literature in SAH patients⁹.

Secondly, we excluded patients with catastrophic brain injury in which treatment was considered futile since admission.

Finally, our higher incidence of good outcome could be related to a low cut-point on GOSE. There is no consensus on the cut-off point to define favourable outcome with GOSE in acute brain injury patients. As shown in a recent paper by Zuckerman et al²⁵ there is a wide range of cut-points on GOSE in patients with acute brain injury that ranges from 3²⁶ to 7²⁷. Accordingly with other Authors^20,28, we included GOSE 4 among favourable outcome, recognizing functional independence for at least 8 hours as a favourable outcome for patients and caregivers

Our results seem to support our choice; as shown in Table 3, EQ-5D Index and EQ-VAS in group GOSE 4 are more similar to higher grades (GOSE 6-8) than to the lower ones.

Another major issue of discussion regarding outcome is the quality of life perceived by the patients. Median EQ-VAS varies significantly among GOSE grades (p=0.019), while median EQ-index is not significantly different. This could be related to a small sample-size, but also to a broader effectiveness of EQ-VAS in summarizing overall health that is closer to the patient’s perspective. As reported in Table 3, the highest GOSE grades are not the ones with the highest values of EQ-5D Index and EQ-VAS. This is a phenomenon known as disability paradox²⁹. Several studies have shown that many patients, despite a severe disability after brain injury, enjoy a high quality of life³⁰. It is remarkable the broad range of EQ-VAS and EQ-5D Index in the GOSE 3 group in our cohort: in fact, in this group usually considered as unfavourable outcome in studies on acute brain injury, there are a patient with poor quality of life (EQ-5D Index -0.594 and EQ-VAS of 20) and a patient with good quality of life (EQ-5D Index 0.883, EQ-VAS of 80). Should this still be considered a poor outcome or should we focus our attention on the perceived quality of life? It is a thought question that goes behind the purpose of this study, but that should foster a debate.

This poses, if possible, even major challenges to physicians when talking about prognostication in patients with poor-grade SAH and highlights the importance of shared-decision making with the patients and/or the family in this field³¹; moreover, this remarks the importance of patient-centred outcome studies.

Unfortunately, few are the tools available during ICU stay to evaluate prognosis in this group of patients.

Regarding baseline data, in our cohort females seem to have a better prognosis compared to males; to our knowledge, in previous reports are reported no sex differences in long-term outcome of SAH patients³². This could be related to a small sample size and it will require further studies to understand this finding.

In this study, of the most used severity scale, only HH scale seems to show a relation with poor outcome. This scale, introduced in 1968, was first used to predict the rate of mortality based solely on the clinical features in SAH patients; higher HH grades have been associated with poor outcomes also in more recent studies^33,34. However, since HH scale does not take in account the presence of reversible causes of coma such as hydrocephalus and seizures, we agree that this scale should not be used alone to define the prognosis of SAH patients.

Consistently with other studies^6,35, GCS at admission is related to long-term outcome in our cohort. The level of consciousness in patients admitted with SAH could represent the epiphenomenon of the early brain injury that is developing after aneurismal rupture; the pathophysiology of this process it is not completely understood and should be the object of further studies. Nonetheless, a poor GCS at admission could be associated with a good recovery as shown by Hoogmeoed et al³⁶.

Among SAH-related complications, only high early intracranial hypertension was related with poor outcome in our cohort. This finding could have different explanations. Early HICP could be related to a well-known cause such as hydrocephalus, but this was not related to poor outcome in our cohort. Possibly, early HICP could be a surrogate marker of EBI due to loss of autoregulation³⁷ or cerebral edema^14,38.

As highlighted in other papers, our data support the lack of relation between vasospasm detected on TCD and/or CTA and long-term outcome. The incidence of vasospasm is similar to other cohorts of patients⁶ and emphasises the importance of distinguishing between vasospasm, DCI and DCIn⁴. As highlighted by recent papers, DCI has a complex pathology in which vasospasm is just one of the determinants of brain injury. TCD and angiographic spasm seem to pose the patients at higher risk of DCI, but this is not related to long-term outcome^39–41.

Instead, DCI can lead to DCIn, a well-known factor related to long-term poor outcome.

DCI can be suspected in patients with clinical deterioration or in patients with impaired CT-perfusion¹⁷. As remarked by the same authors that proposed the definition of clinical deterioration due to DCI in 2010, diagnosis of DCI can be tricky due to several confounders, especially in ICU patients¹⁸. The presence of several confounders combined with the small sample size could explain the lack of relation between DCI and long-term outcome in our cohort. Another possible explanation is that DCI is not strictly related to DCIn. In fact, in our cohort, only 25% of patients who had impaired CT-perfusion developed DCIn. This seems to support the hypothesis that DCI detected on CT-perfusion still represents a reversible situation that requires the highest quality of care to prevent DCIn^42,43.

Limitations

The main limitation of the study is the small sample size. A larger number of cases would allow multivariate analysis to identify independent outcomes predictors.

mRS seems to be a better outcome measure for SAH patients, but GOSE is still widely used. Moreover, in our Institution GOSE is widely used as an outcome scale for patients with acute brain injury and physicians and nurses are well-trained in its use.

Regarding dichotomizations, there are several cut-offs reported in the literature that could limit the comparison between studies.

Another limitation is the use of caregivers as surrogate to evaluate QoL, but this is recommended in all the cases in which the patients it is unable to answer. This study does not include patients admitted in good neurological condition and managed in the neurosurgery ward throughout their hospital stay.

This study describes long-term disability and quality of life in SAH patients admitted to ICU and their relation with clinical features. High HH grades and early HICP were related with unfavourable outcome. Among patients with unfavourable outcome, quality of life has a broad range of variability and this result should be taken into account when reporting patient-centred outcomes.

SAH: Subarachnoid hemorrhage

DCI: Delayed cerebral ischemia;

DCIn: Delayed cerebral infarction

EBI: Early brain injury

ICP: intracranial pressure

HICP: high intracranial pressure

ICU: Intensive Care Unit

EVD: external ventricular drain

GOSE: Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended

mRS: modified Rankin Scale

Hunt-Hess Scale: HH Scale

mFS: modified Fisher Scale

WFNS: World Federation of Neurological Surgeons

TCD: transcranial doppler

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
Funding: None
Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals: approval of the Local Research Ethics Committee of AUSL Romagna. Procedure was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2000). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”
Acknowledgements: The authors thank all colleagues and nurses for their precious work in clinical care and data recording. We thank E. Malatesta (Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy) for radiological data collection, C. Martino (Umberto I Hospital, Lugo, Italy) for patients’ management support.
Availability of data and material: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' contributions and Authors' information:

C.B. and E.R. initiated the study. C.B. and S.S. collected all the data. E.R performed data analysis. C.B., E.B. and E.R. wrote the main draft. Mi.Ro., A.V., G.B., M.D., L.T., E.L., Ma.Ru., V.A. reviewed the final manuscript.

IRB Information: This study was approved by the Local Research Ethics Committee of AUSL Romagna (approval number 3041, 11/06/2021)

Competing interest: No external funding and no competing interests declared.

Lawton, M. T. & Vates, G. E. Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 257–266 (2017).
Schatlo, B. et al. Incidence and Outcome of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Swiss Study on Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (Swiss SOS). Stroke 52, 344–347 (2021).
Amodio, S., Bouzat, P., Robba, C. & Taccone, F. S. Rethinking brain injury after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Crit. Care 24, 612, s13054-020-03342–2 (2020).
Macdonald, R. L. Delayed neurological deterioration after subarachnoid haemorrhage. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 10, 44–58 (2014).
Dinglas, V. D., Faraone, L. N. & Needham, D. M. Understanding patient-important outcomes after critical illness: a synthesis of recent qualitative, empirical, and consensus-related studies. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 24, 401–409 (2018).
Chalard, K. et al. Long-term outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage requiring mechanical ventilation. PLOS ONE 16, e0247942 (2021).
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health.
Hodgson, C. L. et al. The impact of disability in survivors of critical illness. Intensive Care Med. 43, 992–1001 (2017).
Andersen, C. R., Fitzgerald, E., Delaney, A. & Finfer, S. A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research. Neurocrit. Care 30, 534–541 (2019).
Benchimol, E. I. et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement. PLOS Med. 12, e1001885 (2015).
Steiner, T. et al. European Stroke Organization Guidelines for the Management of Intracranial Aneurysms and Subarachnoid Haemorrhage. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 35, 93–112 (2013).
Bender, M. et al. Transcranial Doppler Sonography Defined Vasospasm, Ischemic Brain Lesions, and Delayed Ischemic Neurological Deficit in Younger and Elderly Patients after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. World Neurosurg. 138, e718–e724 (2020).
Zoerle, T. et al. Intracranial Pressure After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage*: Crit. Care Med. 43, 168–176 (2015).
Kramer, A. H. Critical ICP in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: How High and How Long? Neurocrit. Care 34, 714–716 (2021).
Hirsch, L. J. et al. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society’s Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology: 2021 Version. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. Publ. Am. Electroencephalogr. Soc. 38, 1–29 (2021).
Hocker, S. E. et al. Indicators of Central Fever in the Neurologic Intensive Care Unit. JAMA Neurol. (2013) doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.4354.
Rass, V. & Helbok, R. How to diagnose delayed cerebral ischaemia and symptomatic vasospasm and prevent cerebral infarction in patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 27, 103–114 (2021).
Vergouwen, M. D. I. et al. Definition of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage as an Outcome Event in Clinical Trials and Observational Studies: Proposal of a Multidisciplinary Research Group. Stroke 41, 2391–2395 (2010).
Wilson, L. et al. A Manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview. J. Neurotrauma 38, 2435–2446 (2021).
Hutchinson, P. J. et al. Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1119–1130 (2016).
Rabin, R. & Charro, F. de. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med. 33, 337–343 (2001).
Dolan, P. Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States. Med. Care 35, 1095 (1997).
Saigle, V. et al. Do patient-reported outcome measures for SAH include patient, family, and caregiver priorities?: A scoping review. Neurology 92, 281–295 (2019).
Andersen, C. R. et al. Core outcomes for subarachnoid haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol. 18, 1075–1076 (2019).
Zuckerman, D. A., Giacino, J. T. & Bodien, Y. G. Traumatic Brain Injury: What Is a Favorable Outcome? J. Neurotrauma 39, 1010–1012 (2022).
Haveman, M. E. et al. Predicting outcome in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury using electroencephalography. Crit. Care 23, 401 (2019).
Wright, D. W. et al. Very Early Administration of Progesterone for Acute Traumatic Brain Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2457–2466 (2014).
Claassen, J. et al. Detection of Brain Activation in Unresponsive Patients with Acute Brain Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 2497–2505 (2019).
Albrecht, G. L. & Devlieger, P. J. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc. Sci. Med. 48, 977–988 (1999).
Wilson, M., Staniforth, A., Till, R., das Nair, R. & Vesey, P. The psychosocial outcomes of anoxic brain injury following cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 85, 795–800 (2014).
Goostrey, K. & Muehlschlegel, S. Prognostication and shared decision making in neurocritical care. BMJ 377, e060154 (2022).
Fuentes, A. M., Stone McGuire, L. & Amin-Hanjani, S. Sex Differences in Cerebral Aneurysms and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Stroke 53, 624–633 (2022).
Lantigua, H. et al. Subarachnoid hemorrhage: who dies, and why? Crit. Care 19, 309 (2015).
Wang, L. et al. Risk factors and predictive models of poor prognosis and delayed cerebral ischemia in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage complicated with hydrocephalus. Front. Neurol. 13, (2022).
Bae, I.-S., Chun, H.-J., Choi, K.-S. & Yi, H.-J. Modified Glasgow coma scale for predicting outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 100, e25815 (2021).
Hoogmoed, J. et al. Early Treatment Decisions in Poor-Grade Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. World Neurosurg. 119, e568–e573 (2018).
Budohoski, K. P. & Czosnyka, M. Growing Evidence: Dysautoregulation May Trigger Ischemic Deficit After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage*. Crit. Care Med. 46, 828–829 (2018).
Claassen, J. et al. Global Cerebral Edema After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Stroke 33, 1225–1232 (2002).
Weir, B. Vasospasm: does it cause infarction and poor outcome? J. Neurosurg. 134, 1006–1011 (2021).
Rao, G. S. U. & Muthuchellappan, R. Cerebral vasospasm: current understanding. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 29, 544–551 (2016).
Dodd, W. S. et al. Pathophysiology of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Review. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10, e021845 (2021).
Mir, D. I. A. et al. CT Perfusion for Detection of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 35, 866–871 (2014).
Weiss, M. et al. Endovascular Rescue Treatment for Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Is Safe and Effective. Front. Neurol. 10, (2019).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care unit: a single-center retrospective study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1