Medically induced hypertension, hypervolaemia and haemodilution for the treatment and prophylaxis of vasospasm following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: systematic review.

PURPOSE: Arterial vasospasm is a major cause of death and long-term disability following subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). The use of medically induced hypertension, hypervolaemia and/or haemodilution is widely practiced for prophylaxis and treatment of vasospasm following SAH. We aimed to determine if the quality of available research is adequate to inform use of haemodynamic management strategies to prevent or treat vasospasm following SAH.

METHODS: Individual searches of the following databases were conducted: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and OpenSIGLE. Pertinent randomised clinical trials and cohort studies comparing any element or combination thereof: medically induced hypertension, hypervolaemia, and haemodilution were included. Data were extracted using standardised proformas and risk of bias assessed using a domain-based risk of bias assessment tool.

RESULTS: 348 study reports were identified by our literature search. Eight studies were included, three of which examined both volume expansion and medically induced hypertension. Three randomised clinical trials and two cohort studies examining prophylactic volume expansion were included. Two trials of prophylactic medically induced hypertension and two cohort studies were included. One trial and one cohort study of medically induced hypertension for treatment of established vasospasm was included. These trials demonstrated no significant difference in any of the clinical outcome measures studied. No trials of blood transfusion were included.

CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or non-efficacy of intravenous volume expansion, medically induced hypertension or blood transfusion for the treatment or prophylaxis of vasospasm following SAH. All of these approaches have been associated with adverse events, of unclear incidence. The current evidence base therefore cannot be used to reliably inform clinical practice. This is a priority for further research.