The role of pharmacotherapy in the management of chronic subdural haematoma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2017.14479

Chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) is a common neurological condition in elderly individuals, and its incidence is rising owing to an aging population and increasing use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications [1]. Affected patients can present with a variety of symptoms, such as gait disturbance and recurrent falls, progressive limb weakness, cognitive decline, acute confusion and headaches. Presentation can occasionally mimic stroke or rapidly progressive dementia [1]. The mainstay of management for symptomatic patients with sizeable subdural collections is surgical evacuation [2]. However, recent years have seen renewed interest in the pharmacological management of cSDH, which is the focus of the systematic review by Soleman and colleagues in Swiss Medical Weekly [3].

Recurrence following surgical evacuation, which affects 10 to 20% of patients in most contemporary series, leads to additional morbidity and can affect long-term outcome, including increased mortality [1, 4]. Pharmacological interventions have been used as adjunctive therapies during the perioperative period, with the aim to reduce the risk of recurrence or as an alternative to surgical intervention.

Exploring the role of pharmacological interventions in the management of cSDH patients is important because these interventions could target specific underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, such as inflammation, hyperfibrinolysis, angiogenesis and haemorrhage from neocapillaries [1, 5]. Additionally, improved access to medical care and imaging, at least in high-income countries, means that patients can be diagnosed earlier in their clinical course, making pharmacological treatment options more viable, with surgery potentially reserved for the more severely affected or comatose patient.

Soleman and colleagues have summarised thoroughly the various pharmacological interventions used in patients with cSDH. When considering nonsurgical options, it is also important to remember that there is a group of patients with small collections and virtually no symptoms attributable to the cSDH, in whom a “wait and watch” policy is appropriate and feasible, as long as the patients and their families are informed about symptoms that should prompt them to re-present to medical services. In terms of the pharmacological options, there is variation in their use even within the same countries and units, and this directly reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence [6]. Relatively more experience exists with steroids, compared with other agents, but no evidence derived from randomised controlled trials is available yet. Tranexamic acid, statins, and angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitors are potentially promising as they can target some of the pathophysiological mechanisms, but no high-quality evidence exists regarding their use. Hence, it is very encouraging that several trials of these agents are underway, as it is important that changes in practice are driven by robust research. The continued development of well-designed large multicentre randomised trials in the field of CSDH is crucial and likely to have a substantial impact on the management of patients, either by the introduction of effective agents into routine practice or by discontinuing the use of ineffective or harmful agents.

Additionally, the conduct of cSDH randomised trials needs to improve such that studies are adequately sized, and representative of “real-world” conditions by having broad inclusion criteria (if possible) and enrolling patients across several sites [7]. Moreover, work in several fields in the last few years has focused on the development of common outcome measures and data elements in order to facilitate trial meta-analyses [8, 9]. Our group has already initiated the “Core Outcomes and Common Data Elements in CSDH” (CODE-CSDH) project that aims to do exactly this in the cSDH field [10, 11]. Our systematic review, which is the first part of this project, has shown that outcome domains reported by cSDH studies include recurrence (94%), mortality (64% of included studies), complications (48%), functional outcomes (40%) and radiological (38%) outcomes [10]. However, we found significant heterogeneity in the definitions of the outcome measures, as evidenced by the seven different definitions of the term “recurrence,” with no definition given in 19% of the studies.

Finally, the conduct of prospective multicentre observational studies can facilitate the validation of trial findings in the real world. The multicentre prospective observational cSDH cohort study of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC), which collected data on 1205 patients with cSDH from 26 of the 33 UK and Ireland neurosurgical units between May 2013 and January 2014, showed that the UK-wide recurrence rate was 9% [12, 13]. This is very similar to the recurrence rate observed in the drain arm of the Cambridge cSDH trial [4]. More importantly, failure to insert a drain was an independent predictor of recurrence and unfavourable functional outcome at discharge in multivariate analysis. This validated the effectiveness of subdural drains in a real-world setting. Research collaboratives such as the BNTRC are well positioned to undertake patient-centred multicentre studies, including trials in the nonelective setting [14]. The BNTRC is currently involved with two multicentre randomised trials, one of which is examining the clinical effectiveness of a 2-week course of dexamethasone for symptomatic cSDH patients (Dex-CSDH) [15].

In summary, Soleman and colleagues have highlighted the limited evidence base for pharmacotherapy in cSDH management. The randomised trials that are currently underway will hopefully remedy this situation by providing robust evidence for the future but efforts also need to focus on improving the conduct of trials.

References

1 Kolias AG , Chari A , Santarius T , Hutchinson PJ . Chronic subdural haematoma: modern management and emerging therapies. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(10):570–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.163  

2 Weigel R , Schmiedek P , Krauss JK . Outcome of contemporary surgery for chronic subdural haematoma: evidence based review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74(7):937–43. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.74.7.937  

3 Soleman J , Nocera F , Mariani L . The conservative and pharmacological management of chronic subdural haematoma. Swiss Med Wkly. 2017;147:w14398. https://smw.ch/en/article/doi/smw.2017.14398/  

4 Santarius T , Kirkpatrick PJ , Ganesan D , Chia HL , Jalloh I , Smielewski P , et al. Use of drains versus no drains after burr-hole evacuation of chronic subdural haematoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1067–73. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61115-6  

5 Santarius T , Kirkpatrick PJ , Kolias AG , Hutchinson PJ . Working toward rational and evidence-based treatment of chronic subdural hematoma. Clin Neurosurg. 2010;57:112–22.  

6 Berghauser Pont LME , Dippel DWJ , Verweij BH , Dirven CMF , Dammers R . Ambivalence among neurologists and neurosurgeons on the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: a national survey. Acta Neurol Belg. 2013;113(1):55–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-012-0130-1  

7 Turner CL , Kolias AG , Hutchinson PJ . Feasibility studies, clinical trials and multicentre collaboration. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159(1):11–2. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-3009-8  

8Kolias AG, Hutchinson PJ, Morton DG, Blazeby JM, McCulloch P. Letter to the Editor: Methodological advances in randomized trials. J Neurosurg. 2016 Mar 11;1–3. 

9 Gorst SL , Gargon E , Clarke M , Smith V , Williamson PR . Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168403. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168403  

10 Chari A , Hocking KC , Broughton E , Turner C , Santarius T , Hutchinson PJ , et al. Core Outcomes and Common Data Elements in Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Systematic Review of the Literature Focusing on Reported Outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(13):1212–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.3983  

11 Chari A , Hocking KC , Edlmann E , Turner C , Santarius T , Hutchinson PJ , et al. Core Outcomes and Common Data Elements in Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Systematic Review of the Literature Focusing on Baseline and Peri-Operative Care Data Elements. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(17):1569–75. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.4248  

12 Coulter IC , Kolias AG , Marcus HJ , Ahmed AI , Alli S , Al-Mahfoudh R , et al.; UK Neurosurgical Research Network, British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative. Proposal for a prospective multi-centre audit of chronic subdural haematoma management in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28(2):199–203. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2013.835378  

13 Brennan PM , Kolias AG , Joannides AJ , Shapey J , Marcus HJ , Gregson BA , et al.; on behalf of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative. The management and outcome for patients with chronic subdural hematoma: a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study in the United Kingdom. J Neurosurg. 2016 Nov 11:1–8. [E-pub ahead of print.] doi:.https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.8.JNS16134  

14 Bhangu A , Fitzgerald JE , Kolias AG . Trainee-led research collaboratives: a novel model for delivering multi-centre studies. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(12):902–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12797  

15A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of a two-week course of dexamethasone for adult patients with a symptomatic Chronic Subdural Haematoma (Dex-CSDH trial). http: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN80782810 (accessed 7 April 2017).