The efficacy of different nimodipine administration route for treating subarachnoid hemorrhage: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to explore the optimal administration route of nimodipine for treatment subarachnoid hemorrhage.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases) were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating different administration route of nimodipine (intravenous and enteral) versus placebo for treatment subarachnoid hemorrhage. Outcomes included case fatality at 3 months, poor outcome measured at 3 months (defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability), incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), delayed ischemic neurological deficit. A random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals. The NMA was performed using R Software with a GeMTC package. A Bayesian NMA was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials met criteria for inclusion and finally included in this NMA. There was no statistically significant between intravenous and enteral in terms of case fatality, the occurrence of DCI, delayed ischemic neurologic deficit and poor outcomes (P > .05). Both intravenous and enteral could reduce case fatality, the occurrence of DCI, delayed ischemic neurologic deficit and poor outcomes (P < .05). The SUCRA shows that enteral ranked first, intravenous ranked second and placebo ranked the last for case fatality, the occurrence of DCI and poor outcomes. The SUCRA shows that intravenous ranked first, enteral ranked second and placebo ranked the last for delayed ischemic neurologic deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible that both enteral and intravenous nimodipine have comparable effectiveness in preventing poor outcomes, DCI, and delayed ischemic neurological deficits. However, further investigation may be necessary to determine the exact role of intravenous nimodipine in current clinical practice.