On Episode 18 of the Stroke Alert Podcast, host Dr. Negar Asdaghi highlights two articles from the July 2022 issue of Stroke: “Impact of Shunting Practice Patterns During Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis” and “Socioeconomic Inequalities in Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.” She also interviews Dr. Magdy Selim about his article “Effect of Deferoxamine on Trajectory of Recovery After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Post Hoc Analysis of the i-DEF Trial.”
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Let's start with some questions.
1) Is deferoxamine mesylate yet another failed agent for treatment of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, or is deferoxamine getting us closer than ever to an approved therapy for this deadly form of stroke?
2) Are different strokes happening to different folks due to their disadvantaged socioeconomic status?
3) And finally, how does a surgeon's personal practice preference to either routinely or selectively use carotid shunting during carotid endarterectomy impact the recurrent risk of stroke or death in patients with symptomatic carotid disease?
We'll tackle these questions and a lot more in today's podcast as we continue to cover the cerebrovascular world's latest and greatest because, without a doubt, this is the best in Stroke.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Welcome back to the July issue of the Stroke Alert Podcast. My name is Negar Asdaghi. I'm an Associate Professor of Neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and your host for the monthly Stroke Alert Podcast. The July 2022 issue of Stroke contains a range of really interesting papers that I'd like to highlight here. As part of our Cochrane Corner articles, giving us short summaries of the long systematic review of a given topic, we have two short articles, one on the issue of local versus general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy, where we learn that based on the current evidence, there's no convincing difference between local versus general anesthesia in the risk of stroke and death within 30 days after the procedure. In the second Cochrane Corner article, titled "Information Provision for Stroke Survivors and Their Carers," we learn that stroke survivors and their caregivers routinely report dissatisfaction with information provided to them by their clinicians about their condition and how active approaches to information provision is superior to its passive forms in improving patients' involvement in their care, their satisfaction, and, ultimately and not surprisingly, their stroke outcome.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: As part of our original contributions in this issue of the journal, we have an important paper titled "The Risk of Early Versus Later Rebleeding From Dural AV Fistulas With Cortical Venous Drainage." We are reminded in this paper that cranial dural arteriovenous fistulas are classified based on their venous drainage into those with or those without cortical venous drainage, or CVD. Dural AV fistulas without CVD rarely cause intracranial bleeding, while those with CVD may cause hemorrhage. In this study, the authors show that the risk of rebleeding of dural AV fistulas with CVD presenting with hemorrhage is increased in the first two weeks after ICH, emphasizing the importance of early detection of these malformations by vascular imaging and early treatment of AV fistulas with cortical drainage. This paper is another analysis from the CONDOR registry. Our devoted Stroke Alert listeners recall that we covered this registry in more detail when we interviewed Dr. Amin-Hanjani last October on the outcomes of intracerebral hemorrhage patients found to have dural AV fistulas. I encourage you to review these articles in addition to listening to our podcast today.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Later in the podcast, I have the distinct honor of interviewing Dr. Magdy Selim from Harvard Medical School on a critical analysis from i-DEF trial to examine the long-term outcome of patients with ICH who were randomized to receive deferoxamine versus placebo. As an expert in the field of intracerebral hemorrhage and a member of the recently published American Heart Association Guidelines Committee, Dr. Selim was not fazed at all about the neutral results of the trial. "The future of ICH is bright," he says, and in the interview, he tells us why. But first, with these two articles.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Since its first reported successful surgery in 1953, carotid endarterectomy, or CEA, has become a common surgical procedure to prevent ischemic stroke in patients with carotid disease. CEA requires a temporary clamping of the carotid artery that is being worked on. During this time, the ipsilateral hemisphere is, of course, dependent on collateral flow from the posterior circulation or from the contralateral anterior circulation to maintain its perfusion pressure. Intraoperatively, various methods are used to monitor cerebral perfusion, and the risk of clamping-induced hypoperfusion is obviously variable for each patient depending on the patient's specific anatomy, their collateral status, and other risk factors. One way to protect the brain against possible clamp-induced ischemia is to do carotid shunting. The problem is that carotid shunting also comes with its own set of risks and problems. There's the risk of causing carotid dissection, embolization of pieces of the plaque during shunt insertion, or the risk of causing air embolism.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: There are also other shunt-related local complications that should be noted, such as possibility of causing injuries to the cranial nerves or development of neck hematoma related to the more extensive surgical exposure required for shunting. So, it's not surprising that the practice patterns with regards to shunting is quite variable amongst different surgeons. There are surgeons that are considered routine shunters, and those who are considered selective shunters, meaning that the shunt is inserted only in cases with a particular indication. The question is whether the surgeon's preference for shunting can impact the CEA outcomes. In the current issue of the journal, we have an interesting study led by Dr. Randall DeMartino from the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, where the authors look at the impact of shunting practice patterns during carotid endarterectomy on the following post-CEA outcomes: number one, in-hospital stroke and in-hospital death rates, and number two, combined stroke and death in patients with a recent symptomatic carotid disease, that is, carotid stenosis associated with a history of either ipsilateral stroke or TIA within the past 14 days of endarterectomy.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, the data for the study came from the ongoing Vascular Quality Initiative database, which comprises a network of more than 600 North American academic and community hospitals, and collects data on 12 different vascular procedures, one of which is CEA. The study included over 13,000 carotid endarterectomies performed from 2010 to 2019 for symptomatic carotid patients. This number came after they applied their exclusion criteria to all CEAs performed in the database during this timeframe, importantly excluding any asymptomatic carotid surgeries or those in whom surgery was performed after the two-week mark post qualifying TIA or stroke. Now, before we go over the results, let's go over some definitions used in the study. They had to classify surgeons to be able to do the study into two categories of routine versus selective shunters. So, what they did was to analyze all consecutive CEAs, whether they were done on symptomatic or asymptomatic carotids, in this database, aggregated at the surgeon level. Surgeons routinely shunting in over 95% of their procedures were gauged as routine shunters. Otherwise, they were classified as selective shunters.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Now, coming to each case included in this study, each surgical case was, in turn, classified into four categories based on whether or not a shunt was actually used for that particular case: category one, no shunt used; category two, shunt used as a routine procedure; number three, shunt used for a preoperative, mostly anatomical indication; number four, shunt was used for an intraoperative indication, which, as we mentioned before, these are mostly intraoperative hemodynamic compromised situations. And here are the results: In total, 3,186 of surgeries, that is 24% of surgeries, were performed by routine shunters versus 76% by selective shunters. So, most surgeons were selective shunters in this study. The demographic of patients operated by the routine versus selective shunters were more or less similar with regards to the age of the patients, most of their vascular risk factors, and the degree of ipsilateral or contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion, with a few notable exceptions, in that patients undergoing surgery by routine shunters were more likely White, more likely to have had a prior CABG, more likely to undergo the operation while taking a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet agent, and these patients were more likely to have had a TIA rather than a stroke as their qualifying event, which probably explains why they were more likely to be operated on within 48 hours of symptom onset as well. So, the authors accounted for these differences when they did their multivariate analysis.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: The other thing to note was that overall, routine shunters used a shunt in 98.1% of their cases, whereas selective shunters used them in 46% of their cases. Now, in terms of their study outcomes, the shunting practice pattern did not impact the primary outcomes of in-hospital stroke or death, or a combination of these two outcomes, or even the odds of development of cranial nerve injuries or hemorrhage in the adjusted model, which is really good news here. But interestingly, in the final adjusted model, whether or not an actual shunt was placed during surgery did significantly increase the risk of postoperative stroke, with the odds ratio of 1.29, an effect that was entirely driven by the use of shunt by a surgeon classified as a selective shunter in this study.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, in simple terms, if a shunt was placed during CEA, it did increase the risk of stroke only if that surgeon was a selective shunter. Another interesting association was that amongst selective shunters, placing a shunt for a patient with a very recent ischemic event, that is, TIA or stroke within the past 48 hours prior to surgery, and placing a shunt for an intraoperative indication, meaning shunt placement was not pre-surgically planned, also significantly increased the risk of postoperative stroke. So, what we learned from the study is that, though a surgeon's shunting practice pattern did not have an impact on the overall postoperative risk of stroke or death, the placement of a shunt did indeed increase the risk of postoperative stroke only if it was placed by a surgeon who is a selective shunter, especially for an intraoperative indication in a patient with a recent ischemic event.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, shunts can be tricky, especially if they're done by a surgeon who doesn't place them routinely. So, my take-home message is that ultimately, like every other procedure in medicine, clinical outcomes are as much operator dependent as they are patient dependent, and for every procedure, it's fair to say that practice makes perfect.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: It is now more than 25 years since intravenous thrombolytic therapy has been approved for treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke and more than seven years since randomized control trials demonstrated the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy to improve clinical outcome in ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions. To date, reperfusion therapies are the only available acute treatments for select patients with ischemic stroke. What do we mean by "select"? "Select" meaning that not all patients will benefit from these therapies, making it absolutely necessary for clinicians to be up to date with various indications and contraindications to use these therapies. Needless to say that the criteria for reperfusion therapies do not and should not consider the socioeconomic status of patients, but sadly, socioeconomic inequalities seem to impact the use of reperfusion therapies.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: In this issue of the journal, in the study titled "Socioeconomic Inequalities in Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke," Dr. Øgendahl Buus from Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark and colleagues studied the impact of the socioeconomic status of stroke patients on the odds of receiving reperfusion therapies in the large nationwide Danish Stroke Registry, or DSR. Now a bit about the registry: DSR contains prospectively collected nationwide data on all stroke patients admitted to Danish hospitals. It's interesting to note that in Denmark, stroke patients are exclusively admitted to public hospitals, and all departments treating stroke patients are obligated to report data to DSR. Now, for this study, they included over 63,000 stroke patients from 2013 to 2018. After excluding hemorrhagic stroke, TIAs, and other exclusion criteria of the study, they arrived at their sample size of 37,187 patients that were included in this study.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Now, a few definitions. The socioeconomic status of each patient was determined based on three parameters. Parameter number one, their educational level. It was categorized into three levels of low, medium, or high levels of education. Category number two, income level. This was calculated based on the average family equivalent disposable income, or FED income, during five years prior to stroke onset, again classified into three categories of high, medium, or low income. And the third factor was the employment status of the patient during the calendar year prior to the stroke onset, also categorized into three categories of employed, unemployed, and retired. And, of course, the authors used various definitions to be able to fit special situations into these categories. For instance, a person who is temporarily unemployed due to illness or other special situation was still categorized under the employed category. So, that gave them, in total, nine groups to analyze across these three categories.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: And here are their findings. The median age of total stroke patients in the cohort was 73.2 years, 44.1% were women, 41% categorized under low educational level, 68% retired, and 33.3% had low income levels. Not surprisingly, patients and hospital characteristics varied tremendously across these nine groups of education, employment, and income, and a univariate analysis in general, low socioeconomic status was associated with more severe strokes, living alone, living at an assisted living residency, having had prior stroke, high comorbidity index score, hypertension, and late hospital arrival. So, they accounted for these differences in their multivariate analysis.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Now, overall, the treatment rates of IV thrombolysis was 17.6%, which is actually considered a very high percentage as compared to other registry-based studies, but the percentage of IV thrombolytic use dramatically varied based on the different socioeconomic designation. So, let's look at this. In the univariate analysis, for education, intravenous thrombolysis rates were 19.3% among patients with high educational level compared to 16.2% among patients with low educational level. Let's look at income. For income, IV thrombolytic treatment rates reach 20.7% for high-income patients compared to 14.8% for low-income patients. For employment status, thrombolytic rates were 23.7% among employed patients compared to 15.7% for unemployed patients. In their fully adjusted models, unemployed patients were less likely to receive IV lytics as compared to their employed counterparts.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Now, for thrombectomy, socioeconomic gradients were also noted for these three categories. For education, thrombectomy rates were 4.5% among patients with high education level compared to 3.6% among patients with low educational level. For income, treatment rates were 3.2% among low-income patients compared to 4.7% among high-income patients. But arguably, the most robust differences were noted again across the category of employment. Employed patients were nearly twice more likely to receive thrombectomy as compared to unemployed patients, rates being 5.1% versus 2.8%, respectively. Now, when they adjusted their analysis to only those patients presenting within the reperfusion time windows in the fully adjusted models, unemployment and low income remain significant negative predictors of receiving both of these reperfusion therapies. So, what we learned from this study is that stroke patients who were unemployed, earned a relatively low income, or had fewer years of formal education were less likely to receive life-saving reperfusion therapies despite potentially being eligible for these treatments.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Now, let's take a moment to really understand that data presented here are in the context of a tax-funded, universal healthcare offered across Denmark, where we can at least make the assumption that financial constraints potentially preventing access to therapies are likely minimized. There are many countries around the globe where patients or family members have to pay for these therapies before even receiving them. So, these findings from the current study from Denmark are alarming in that they point to possibly more robust inequalities across the globe in other healthcare systems.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Intracerebral hemorrhage, or ICH, is an aggressive form of stroke, typically carrying a higher morbidity and mortality than its ischemic counterpart. Yet much of the research in the field of intracerebral hemorrhage has followed the ischemic stroke footsteps, including defining the optimal primary outcome for the randomized trials of ICH. For ischemic stroke, the 90-day functional outcome, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale, is commonly used as a primary outcome in clinical trials. There are many reasons for this selection, including the ease of use and the fact that the majority of functional recovery post-ischemic stroke occurs during the first 90-day time period. But time to maximum recovery and, importantly, the trajectory of recovery may be different in hemorrhagic as compared to ischemic stroke. Defining the long-term outcomes and longitudinal trajectory of recovery in ICH is, therefore, important to better understand its prognosis and, of course, selecting the appropriate primary outcome measure for future randomized trials of ICH.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: In the recent years, the safety and efficacy of various agents to improve ICH outcomes have been tested. Deferoxamine mesylate, an iron-chelating agent, is one such agent that was recently studied as part of the i-DEF multicenter randomized trial, and the main results of the study were published in Lancet Neurology in 2019. In the current issue of the journal, in the study titled "Effect of Deferoxamine on Trajectory of Recovery After Intracerebral Hemorrhage," we learn about the results of a post hoc analysis of i-DEF that looks at the trajectory of functional outcome in patients enrolled in the trial with a special attention on their continued recovery after the 90-day post-ICH mark.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Joining me now is the senior author of this paper, Dr. Magdy Selim, who's also one of the primary investigators of i-DEF trial. Dr. Selim is a Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Stroke Division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He's a world renowned researcher in the field of cerebrovascular disorders with special focus on treatment of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Dr. Selim has led and currently leads multiple National Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials of intracerebral hemorrhage, including the ongoing SATURN trial. I'm delighted to welcome him to our podcast today. Good afternoon, Magdy. Thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Magdy Selim: Thank you, Dr. Asdaghi. It's really my pleasure to be here with you, and I'm certainly honored to do this today.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: That's great. Thank you. So, let's start with some background on deferoxamine and the literature supporting the use of deferoxamine before i-DEF.
Dr. Magdy Selim: So, as you mentioned, deferoxamine is an iron chelator; it binds to iron and removes excess iron from the body. The unique thing about it is that it has other neuroprotective properties, which are good for hemorrhagic stroke and ischemic stroke. It also has anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects. It even lowers the blood pressure, which we know sometimes is helpful in intracerebral hemorrhage. The rationale behind this or why this would be effective really comes from animal studies. After you have a hemorrhage, there is hemolysis of the red blood cells, there is a release of hemoglobin degradation products, in particular, iron, and the accumulation of iron in the hematoma and the surrounding tissue triggers a cascade of molecular and cellular events that lead to what we call secondary injury, characterized by inflammation, hydroxyl radical formation, and cell death. And many animal studies, animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage, whether in pigs or in rats, young or aged rats, have shown that treatment with deferoxamine can reduce iron in the brain after intracerebral hemorrhage and also results in improved performance on behavioral tests. And that was the reason why we moved into clinical testing.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, a lot of encouraging data before the trial. Can we hear a little bit about the trial, its design, and inclusion criteria, please?
Dr. Magdy Selim: Sure. So i-DEF was a phase 2 study, and actually it started as Hi-DEF, which was high dose deferoxamine, and then became i-DEF, which intermediate dose deferoxamine. So, it's a randomized, double blind, placebo control trial. We used something called futility design, which is actually sort of new in the stroke field. And we had 294 patients who had supratentorial hemorrhage that were randomized within 24 hours to either get placebo or deferoxamine. And deferoxamine initially was given at 62 mg per day for three days, but then we ran into some safety issues with this high dose, and that's why we lowered it to 32, and that became the intermediate dose, or the i-DEF. So, the only kind of thing unique about inclusion/exclusion criteria was that there was an age cutoff, patients had to be 80 or younger. They needed to have some deficit on the exam, so their NIH Stroke Scale had to be 6 or greater, and their GCS had to be greater than 6, and their modified Rankin before the onset of the hemorrhage had to be less than 1.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: And so, what were the primary and secondary outcomes in i-DEF?
Dr. Magdy Selim: The primary outcome was twofold actually. One of them was safety. One of the issues we ran into with the high dose is that the drug is associated with increased risk for adult respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS. So, we wanted to make sure that this lower dose was safe, and it does not increase the instance of ARDS. The second thing was, as I said, we used something called the futility design, and we wanted to compare the outcome of patients treated with deferoxamine versus placebo to determine whether it's futile to move to a large phase 3 trial or not. And what we were looking at is a difference in outcome and modified Rankin 0 to 2 at 90 days, and the difference would be at least 12% in favor of deferoxamine in order for us to move forward. You asked about the secondary outcomes as well?
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Yes.
Dr. Magdy Selim: So, actually, the secondary outcomes, they're relevant because they're relevant to the study that we just published. So, the secondary outcomes was also to look at modified Rankin 0 to 3, instead of 0 to 2, at 90 days and the difference between the two treatment groups. We wanted to look at the ordinal distribution of the Rankin at the same time point. And we also wanted to look at all the outcomes at six months, 180 days. And that came a little bit later in the course of the study because there was some evidence emerging at that time that maybe assessment of outcome later in intracerebral hemorrhage would be more accurate than assessing it early on.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, I want to come back to the secondary outcome, of course, that's sort of the topic of your current paper in this issue of the journal, but can you just briefly tell us, please, the primary outcome and the sort of results of what was published in 2019 with i-DEF before we move on to the current paper?
Dr. Magdy Selim: Yeah. So, as I said, the primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients that achieved modified Rankin 0 to 2 at 90 days, and what we wanted to see is a difference of around 12%. Unfortunately, the primary outcome was neutral, we did not see that. But what we saw actually, almost all the secondary outcomes were positive, except for the primary outcome. So, when we looked at the secondary outcome using modified Rankin 0 to 3, instead of 0 to 2, the difference was 12.1%. When we looked at the difference in the modified Rankin 0 to 2 at six months, the difference was 15.6% in favor of deferoxamine, but these were secondary outcomes and not the primary outcomes.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, the trial is almost positive. It just depends on how you define the primary outcome, which is really a nice segue to your current study. In the current study, you looked at this secondary outcome in a longitudinal way and looked at the mRS of 0 to 2 at six months from ICH. Can you please tell us about this current paper?
Dr. Magdy Selim: Yeah. So, one of the things that we did with i-DEF is that we were checking the modified Rankin at different time points for all the patients. So, we had it after one week, after one month, after two months, after three months, and after six months. And what we wanted really was a couple of things, just in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage without any treatment, what's the natural course of recovery? And the interesting thing we found out is that patients actually continue to improve over time, and that's what you expect, but what we didn't expect is that they even continue to improve after 90 days.
Dr. Magdy Selim: We always used to think that maximum recovery is around 90 days from ischemic stroke literature, but we saw a lot of patients getting better after 90 days. And this turns out to be also the case with deferoxamine, but the interesting thing is that the percentage of patients that had a good outcome, modified Rankin 0 to 2, was higher with deferoxamine at day seven, at day 30, at day 60, not at 90 days, but again at six months. So, actually, it was higher at all time points except our primary endpoint.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: So, Magdy, you've already answered my next question, which is exactly what you alluded to, deferoxamine seemed to have improved the outcomes at all of those time points, except for the 90 day, which was the primary outcome of your trial. Why do you think the magic was lost at 90 days?
Dr. Magdy Selim: This is really the million-dollar question. I think we obviously struggled over this. And we went back, we thought maybe there was misrating of the modified Rankin in some of the patients. We tried to correct for this. The difference was bigger, but still not significant. So, we don't really have a good reason to tell you why, at this particular time point, we didn't see the difference except bad luck, I think. But I mean, there are reasons, I think, the question that people actually ask me is the opposite, is why do you think a drug that you give for three days early on is going to make a difference after six months? And I think there are biological reasons to explain this.
Dr. Magdy Selim: So, what happened is that those hemorrhage patients have a lot of other problems. They have increased ICP, they have hydrocephalus, they have intraventricular hemorrhage, and actually iron has been implicated in the development of hydrocephalus in chronic white matter injury. So, my explanation is that you start early on with the treatment, it does help, but it takes a while for it to kick in and for this kind of medical complication to resolve until actually you see the true effect of the drug. And maybe that's why you see the unmasking at the end between the two groups.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Yeah, I think I want to recap this for our listeners. Very important to, again, think about those things that some of the acute therapies that we offer the patients may not have a measurable improvement outcome difference early on, certainly with intravenous thrombolysis, we saw that, whereas we saw measurable outcome difference at 90 days, or maybe in this case at six months, but not quite early on. So, it doesn't mean that they don't work. We just are unable to measure that difference and improvement early on. So, what do you think the future holds for deferoxamine? Are we going to see another trial?
Dr. Magdy Selim: Well, I certainly hope so. We're working on some few ideas for that. A lot of people think that maybe we should just do the same thing, but look at six months as the primary outcome. But I think we're actually, that's probably not our primary thinking at this point in time. So, we have published other papers, other analysis, to show that the effect of deferoxamine actually relates to the volume of the hemorrhage. So, if the hemorrhage is very small, there is very minimal benefit. If the hemorrhage is very large, also there is very minimal benefit. And that's really to get kind of the big bang for your buck. You really want people who have mild-to-moderate size hemorrhages. So, we're thinking of a couple of ways to go about deferoxamine with this, whether alone or in combination with other interventions. So, hopefully, we'll have some stuff to share with you in the coming few years, two or three.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: We'll definitely look forward to reading about those or being involved in the trials as a site, but there's a great way of just actually talking about my next question. It's just completely different than the current paper. I wanted to digress a bit and talk about the recently published intracerebral hemorrhage guidelines, which just published a few months ago. You were part of the guidelines committee. Can you give us a little bit of your point of view of what are the top two most important updates from the guidelines in ICH treatment?
Dr. Magdy Selim: Actually, the guidelines, for the first time this year, in the first page, they have the top 10 take-home messages or top 10 new ones. So, in my opinion, the most important ones, we usually tell you what to do, but here we tell you what not to do because we think it's not good for the patients. So, for example, using steroids just as a prophylactic therapy is actually not recommended. The same thing, we see a lot of people put patients with hemorrhage on hypertonic saline, hyperosmolar therapy, just prophylactically. I don't think there's any benefit that this helps as well, and the same thing for antiepileptic drugs. So, that was one important point. The second one was blood pressure lowering, and there is emphasis now that whatever you use to lower the blood pressure, you want to make sure that the blood pressure variability is very minimal and that there is a smooth kind of control over blood pressure that has been shown to be actually important in terms of help. I'm going to make them three, not two, because I think the third one is important.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Okay. I'll give you one more then.
Dr. Magdy Selim: Which is the first time we include this in the guideline, and with emphasis on the role of the home caregiver for hemorrhage patients and the psychological support, the education that they need, and the training that they need to actually care for these patients and how to improve their quality of life. So, I think that's an important aspect that we didn't touch upon before, and obviously very important.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Very important points. Let me just review them again for our listeners. So, don't do steroids, hypertonics, and preemptive antiepileptic therapies. They don't work. The second point that you raise is reduction of blood pressure, important to keep that in mind, but paying attention to blood pressure variability. And the third one, the importance of social aspect of care of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. That's great for us. Let me just end with one last question. Magdy, thank you so much for all of this wonderful take-home messages from the current study from i-DEF and also the guidelines. There's been a lot of excitement in the field of ischemic stroke with the success of reperfusion therapies, and yet not much for intracerebral hemorrhage. What is your hope in terms of future therapies for ICH?
Dr. Magdy Selim: So, I happen to be one of the people who is very optimistic about the future of ICH. I think it's just a matter of time. But I think we need to make some changes. We need to really treat ICH as an emergency, so time is really important. And I think right now, you see a hemorrhage patient, they just put them on the side because they think that there's nothing to do. But the way I see the future evolving, and probably the breaking point to be, is that we can diagnose ICH in the field. You immediately lower the blood pressure, reverse coagulopathy if you can, and even kind of use hemostatic agents, if the FASTEST trial shows evidence to support that, and then you take them to the hospital where there might be some role for hematoma reduction using minimally invasive therapy and some other treatments like deferoxamine, or there are a lot of other agents to target the secondary injury at the same time. So, I think it's going to be a combination of things, and they need to happen in tandem and continuously, but we need to start quickly on these patients.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: Dr. Magdy Selim, it's been a pleasure interviewing you on the podcast. We look forward to having you back and covering more of your work. Thank you for joining us.
Dr. Magdy Selim: Thank you very much for having me.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: And this concludes our podcast for the July 2022 issue of Stroke. Please be sure to check out this month's table of contents for a full list of publications, including a series of Focus Updates on the very topic of, you guessed it, intracerebral hemorrhage. These updates are great complements to the newly published American Heart Association guidelines for the management of patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage in May 2022.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: And with this, we end our July podcast and draw inspiration from one particular July story, which unfolded on July 20. In 1969, on this day, Commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon, and Armstrong became the first person to walk on the moon. The crew of Apollo 11 changed the course of history, landing humanity on another celestial body for the first time and later safely returning everyone back to earth. Armstrong, an experienced naval aviator, a test pilot, a decorated veteran, astronaut, and university professor, passed away in 2012 from complications of coronary artery disease, reminding us that every step we take in understanding, diagnosing, and treating vascular disorders is truly part of that giant leap to save the mankind. And what better way to do this than to stay alert with Stroke Alert.
Dr. Negar Asdaghi: This program is copyright of the American Heart Association, 2022. The opinions expressed by speakers in this podcast are their own and not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association. For more, visit AHAjournals.org.