We read Qureshi et al's meta-analysis of 7 trials on decompressive hemicraniectomy
in large hemispheric ischemic stroke patients with great appreciation.
1
The study re-demonstrates the considerable survival and functional outcomes benefit
of decompressive hemicraniectomy in patients under the age of 60.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular DiseasesAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Hemicraniectomy versus conservative treatment in large hemispheric ischemic stroke patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016; 25: 2209-2214
- Hemicraniectomy in older patients with extensive middle-cerebral-artery stroke.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 1091-1100
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 22, 2016
Identification
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.10.022
Copyright
© 2017 National Stroke Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Response to Drs. Lahiri and LydenJournal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular DiseasesVol. 26Issue 9
- PreviewWe thank Drs. Lahiri and Lyden for their valuable comments regarding the benefit of hemicraniectomy in patients over the age of 60 years. As the authors mentioned, there was a trend toward higher odds of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-3) among those randomized to hemicraniectomy compared with conservative treatment in trials that permitted recruitment of patients aged 60 years or older (303 subjects analyzed; odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval .91-3.86, P = .09). We agree that the data did not support a significant benefit but only a trend toward higher rates of favorable outcomes.
- Full-Text
- Preview
