Cigarette Smoking as a Risk Factor for Hematoma Expansion in Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Analysis From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background Cigarette smoking is a well-known risk factor for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. We evaluated the impact of smoking status on hematoma expansion and clinical outcome in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods and Results This is a post hoc exploratory analysis of the ATACH (Antihypertensive Treatment at Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage)-2 trial. Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage were randomized into intensive blood pressure lowering (systolic blood pressure, <139 mm Hg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (systolic blood pressure, 140-179 mm Hg) in this study. We compared the demographic characteristics; hematoma size, location, and expansion rate; and clinical outcome based on subjects' smoking status. Of a total of 914 patients in the trial with known smoking status, 439 (48%) patients were ever smokers (264 current smokers and 175 former smokers). Current and former smokers were younger and more likely to be men. Baseline Glasgow Coma Scale score and initial hematoma size did not vary based on smoking status. Ever smokers had higher rates of thalamic hemorrhage (42% versus 34%) and intraventricular hemorrhage (29% versus 23%); this rate was highest among former smokers versus current smokers (49% versus 35%, respectively). Ever smokers had a higher rate of hematoma expansion in 24 hours (adjusted relative risk [RR] [95% CI], 1.46 [1.08-1.96]) compared with nonsmokers on multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in the rate of death and disability at 90 days between the 2 groups (adjusted RR [95% CI], 1.18 [0.998-1.40]). Conclusions Our analysis demonstrates cigarette smoking as an independent predictor for hematoma expansion. There was no significant difference in death and disability based on smoking status.

An Unsuccessful Randomized Trial of Percutaneous vs Endoscopic Drainage of Suspected Malignant Hilar Obstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are widely accepted but competing approaches for the management of malignant obstruction at the hilum of the liver. ERCP is favored in the United States on the basis of high success rates for non-hilar indications, the perceived safety and superior tissue sampling capability of ERCP relative to PTBD, and the avoidance of external drains that are undesirable to patients. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the 2 modalities in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma was terminated prematurely because of higher mortality in the PTBD group.1 In contrast, most observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage.2-6 Because the preferred procedure remains uncertain, we aimed to compare PTBD and ERCP as the primary intervention in patients with cholestasis due to malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). METHODS: The INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded. DISCUSSION: The INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832 . Registered on 1 June 2017.