Hematoma espinal epidural espontáneo: estudio retrospectivo de una serie de 13 casos / Spontaneous spinal epidural haematoma: A retrospective study of a series of 13 cases

Introducción: El hematoma espinal epidural espontáneo (HEEE) tiene una incidencia estimada de un caso por millón de habitantes al año. Se considera espontáneo cuando no se logra relacionar ninguna causa de forma directa con su aparición. Objetivo: Describir una muestra de pacientes con HEEE y analizar las variables relacionadas con el pronóstico funcional del mismo. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de pacientes diagnosticados de HEEE en nuestro centro entre 2001 y 2013. Resultados: Trece pacientes, 7 varones, con edad media de 71 años. El 62% presentaba hipertensión arterial (HTA) y el 54% utilizaba anticoagulantes orales, teniendo una razón normalizada internacional > 3 el 57% de ellos. La presentación clínica más frecuente fue dolor en columna vertebral (85%). El 92% asoció déficit neurológico en forma de síndrome sensitivo-motor (70%), motor puro (15%) o sensitivo puro (7%). Cinco pacientes recibieron tratamiento quirúrgico y 8 fueron tratados de forma conservadora. Al año, 3 de los pacientes tratados de forma quirúrgica y 4 de los de manejo conservador tenían una puntuación igual o menor de 2 en la Escala Rankin Modificada. Se observó peor pronóstico en pacientes anticoagulados, en hematomas de mayor extensión, en hematomas localizados en región lumbar y cuando el compromiso motor inicial era mayor. Conclusiones: La edad avanzada, la HTA y la anticoagulación son los principales factores asociados con el HEEE. La presentación típica consiste en dolor en la columna vertebral seguido de déficit motor. En pacientes con déficits motores establecidos, el tratamiento quirúrgico dentro de las primeras 24 h parece ser la mejor opción terapéutica

Introduction: Spontaneous spinal epidural haematoma (SSEH) has an estimated incidence of one per million inhabitants. It is classified as spontaneous when no identifiable cause can be linked to its onset. Objective: To describe a sample of patients with SSEH and analyse variables related to its functional prognosis. Patients and methods: Retrospective study carried out in patients diagnosed with SSEH between 2001 and 2013 in our hospital. Results: We included 13 subjects (7 men) with a mean age of 71 years. Of the total, 62% had hypertension and 54% were treated with oral anticoagulants; of the latter, 57% had an International Normalised Ratio above 3. The most frequent manifestation was spinal column pain (85%). Nearly all subjects presented an associated neurological deficit, whether sensory-motor (70%), pure motor (15%), or pure sensory (7%). Five patients underwent surgical treatment and 8 had conservative treatment. After one year, 3 of the patients treated surgically and 4 of those on conservative treatment had a score of 2 or lower on the modified Rankin Scale. Poorer prognosis was observed in patients with anticoagulant therapy, large haematomas, location in the lumbar region, and more pronounced motor disability at onset. Conclusions: Old age, hypertension, and anticoagulant therapy are the main risk factors for SSEH. The typical presentation consists of back pain with subsequent motor deficit. In patients with established motor symptoms, surgical treatment within the first 24 hours seems to be the best option

Spontaneous spinal epidural haematoma: a retrospective study of a series of 13 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous spinal epidural haematoma (SSEH) has an estimated incidence of one per million inhabitants. It is classified as spontaneous when no identifiable cause can be linked to its onset. OBJECTIVE: To describe a sample of patients with SSEH and analyse variables related to its functional prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study carried out in patients diagnosed with SSEH between 2001 and 2013 in our hospital. RESULTS: We included 13 subjects (7 men) with a mean age of 71 years. Of the total, 62% had hypertension and 54% were treated with oral anticoagulants; of the latter, 57% had an International Normalised Ratio above 3. The most frequent manifestation was spinal column pain (85%). Nearly all subjects presented an associated neurological deficit, whether sensory-motor (70%), pure motor (15%), or pure sensory (7%). Five patients underwent surgical treatment and 8 had conservative treatment. After one year, 3 of the patients treated surgically and 4 of those on conservative treatment had a score of 2 or lower on the modified Rankin Scale. Poorer prognosis was observed in patients with anticoagulant therapy, large haematomas, location in the lumbar region, and more pronounced motor disability at onset. CONCLUSIONS: Old age, hypertension, and anticoagulant therapy are the main risk factors for SSEH. The typical presentation consists of back pain with subsequent motor deficit. In patients with established motor symptoms, surgical treatment within the first 24hours seems to be the best option.

[Effect of intensive treatment with atorvastatin versus standard doses of statins on the risk of stroke. A meta-analysis from five randomized trials including 25,709 patients]. / Efecto del tratamiento intensivo con atorvastatina frente a dosis estándar de estatinas en el riesgo de ictus de pacientes con enfermedad coronaria previa. Metaanálisis de cinco ensayos aleatorizados con 25.709 pacientes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of intensive lipid lowering treatment with atorvastatin versus standard doses of statins (simvastatin, atorvastatin, lovastatin or pravastatin) on the risk of stroke, using meta-analytic techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis included 5 randomized trials that met the inclusion criteria: comparison between intensive atorvastatin treatment (atorvastatin 80 mg or target LDL < 70 mg/dL) and standard doses of statins, with a clinical follow-up of more than 12 months and stroke as clinical endpoint. TNT (n = 9,917) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. 10 mg; IDEAL (n = 8,888) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. simvastatin 20-40 mg; PROVE-IT (n = 4,162) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. pravastatin 40 mg; ALLIANCE (n = 2,442) atorvastatin 80 mg or target LDL < 70 mg/dL vs. standard treatment; and VBBS (n = 300) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. low dose lavastatin. The selected studies included secondary prevention patients (acute coronary syndrome, stable coronary disease and patients eligible for angioplasty). 25,709 patients were included (12,910 allocated to intensive atorvastatin treatment, and 12,799 to standard doses of statins). Stroke incidence, as reported from each trial, was compared between both treatments. RESULTS: Out of the 25,709 patients, 713 (2.77%) suffered a stroke during follow-up. The incidence of stroke was significantly reduced with intensive atorvastatin treatment in comparison with conventional doses of statins: 2.52% (n = 325) vs. 3.03% (n = 388); relative risk = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-0.96; p = 0.0121. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive lipid lowering treatment with atorvastatin is associated with a 17% relative risk reduction of stroke in comparison with conventional doses of statins in secondary prevention population.

Efecto del tratamiento intensivo con atorvastatina frente a dosis estándar de estatinas en el riesgo de ictus de pacientes con enfermedad coronaria previa. Metaanálisis de cinco ensayos aleatorizados con 25.709 pacientes / Effect of intensive tretament with atorvastatin versus standard doses of statins on the risk of stroke. A meta analysis form five randomized trials incluiding 25, 709 patients

Objetivo. Evaluar, mediante técnicas de metaanálisis, la eficacia hipolipemiante del tratamiento intensivo con atorvastatina frente a dosis estándar de estatinas (sinvastatina, atorvastatina, lovastatina o pravastatina) en el riesgo de ictus en pacientes con enfermedad coronaria previa. Pacientes y métodos. Se incluyeron los cinco ensayos clínicos realizados hasta enero de 2006 que cumplieron los siguientes criterios: comparación de atorvastatina intensiva –80 mg u objetivo de lipoproteínas de baja densidad (LDL) < 70 mg/dL– con dosis estándar de estatinas; duración de más de 12 meses e ictus como objetivo del estudio (secundario o principal combinado). TNT (n = 9.917): atorvastatina 80 mg frente a 10 mg; IDEAL (n = 8.888): atorvastatina 80 mg frente a sinvastatina 20-40 mg; PROVE-IT (n = 4.162): atorvastatina 80 mg frente a pravastatina 40 mg; ALLIANCE (n = 2.442): atorvastatina 80 mg u objetivo LDL < 70 mg/dL frente a dosis estándar de estatinas; y VBSS (n = 300): atorvastatina 80 mg frente a dosis bajas de lovastatina. Los estudios considerados incluyeron población en prevención secundaria (síndrome coronario agudo, enfermedad coronaria estable, pacientes elegibles para angioplastia). Se incluyeron 25.709 pacientes (12.910 en la rama con atorvastatina intensiva y 12.799 en la rama con dosis estándar de estatinas). Se comparó la incidencia de ictus entre ambas ramas. Resultados. 713 pacientes (2,77%) de los 25.709 sufrió un ictus durante el seguimiento. La incidencia de ictus fue significativamente menor en la rama atorvastatina intensiva que en la rama tratada con dosis estándar de estatinas: 2,52% (n = 325) frente a 3,03% (n = 388); riesgo relativo = 0,83; intervalo de confianza al 95% = 0,72-0,96; p = 0,0121. Conclusiones. En pacientes con enfermedad coronaria previa, el tratamiento hipolipemiante intensivo con atorvastatina se asocia a una reducción del 17% en el riesgo de ictus en comparación con dosis estándar de estatinas (AU)

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of intensive lipid lowering treatment with atorvastatin versus standard doses of statins (simvastatin, atorvastatin, lovastatin or pravastatin) on the risk of stroke, using meta-analytic techniques. Patients and methods. The meta-analysis included 5 randomized trials that met the inclusion criteria: comparison between intensive atorvastatin treatment (atorvastatin 80 mg or target LDL < 70 mg/dL) and standard doses of statins, with a clinical follow-up of more than 12 months and stroke as clinical endpoint. TNT (n = 9,917) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. 10 mg; IDEAL (n = 8,888) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. simvastatin 20-40 mg; PROVE-IT (n = 4,162) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. pravastatin 40 mg; ALLIANCE (n = 2,442) atorvastatin 80 mg or target LDL < 70 mg/dL vs. standard treatment; and VBBS (n = 300) atorvastatin 80 mg vs. low dose lavastatin. The selected studies included secondary prevention patients (acute coronary syndrome, stable coronary disease and patients eligible for angioplasty). 25,709 patients were included (12,910 allocated to intensive atorvastatin treatment, and 12,799 to standard doses of statins). Stroke incidence, as reported from each trial, was compared between both treatments. Results. Out of the 25,709 patients, 713 (2.77%) suffered a stroke during follow-up. The incidence of stroke was significantly reduced with intensive atorvastatin treatment in comparison with conventional doses of statins: 2.52% (n = 325) vs. 3.03% (n = 388); relative risk = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-0.96; p = 0.0121. Conclusions. Intensive lipid lowering treatment with atorvastatin is associated with a 17% relative risk reduction of stroke in comparison with conventional doses of statins in secondary prevention population (AU)

[Estimation of the prevalence, incidence, comorbidities and direct costs associated to stroke patients requiring care in an area of the Spanish population]. / Estimación de la prevalencia, incidencia, comorbilidades y costes directos asociados en pacientes que demandan atención por ictus en un ámbito poblacional español.

AIM: To determinate the prevalence, incidence, co-morbidities and therapeutic objectives and costs of stroke among Spanish population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed based on data from patients attended for stroke, aged > 30 years, from five Spanish primary care centres and two hospitals in 2006. Comparative group: patients without stroke. Main analysed variables were: age, sex, co-morbidity (cardiovascular/others), clinical parameters and direct costs (pharmacy, derivations, visits, emergencies, procurement, and hospitalisation). An ANCOVA analysis and logistic regression were used to fit the model. RESULTS: A 4.5% of 57.026 patients (n = 2.585; CI 95% = 4.3-4.7%) suffered stroke. The incidence of stroke was 220 new-cases/100.000 populations. Main differences between patients suffering stroke/control group were: age (72.5 vs. 53.5), men (58.2% vs. 44.6%), episodes/year (7,9 vs. 4,8), visits/year (15,8 vs. 8,1), p < 0,001. Stroke had an independent relation with age (OR = 1,4), male (OR = 2,3), diabetes (OR = 1,6), hypertension (OR = 1,5), smoking (OR = 1,5), alcohol (OR = 1,4), depression (OR = 1,4), dyslipidemia (OR = 1,3) and dementia (OR = 1,2). Some of the results were: systolic pressure (134.1 vs. 127.6 mmHg) and LDL-cholesterol (116.4 vs. 126.2 mg/dL), in presence/absence of stroke, p < 0,001. The average of annual costs of stroke was 2,590.36 vs. 985.26 euros, p < 0.001. After the correction of the logistic model results did not change: 1,774.33 (CI 95% = 1,720.10-1.828.55) vs. 1,021.98 euros (CI 95% = 1,010.92-1,033.03), p < 0,001. All components of costs were higher in the stroke group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that demanded assistance for stroke had a higher number of co-morbidities and a higher total cost/patient/year. Therapeutic objectives could be improved, mainly in primary prevention of cardiovascular risk factors.

Estimación de la prevalencia, incidencia, comorbilidades y costes directos asociados en pacientes que demandan atención por ictus en un ámbito poblacional español / Estimation of the prevalence, incidence, comorbidities and direct costs associated to stroke patients requiring care in an area of the Spanish population

Estimar la prevalencia e incidencia, así como la comorbilidad, objetivos terapéuticos y costes del ictusen un ámbito poblacional español. Pacientes y métodos. Es un diseño retrospectivo-multicéntrico. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 30 años que demandaron asistencia por ictus, pertenecientes a cinco equipos de atención primaria y dos hospitales durante el año 2006. Grupo comparativo: pacientes sin ictus. Principales variables: edad, sexo, casuística/comorbilid (cardiovascular/otras), parámetros bioquímicos y modelo de costes directos (medicamentos, procedimientos, derivaciones, visitas, hospitalizaciones y urgencias). Análisis estadístico: regresión logística y de análisis de covarianza (ANCOVA) para la corrección de los modelos, p < 0,05. Resultados. De los 57.026 pacientes, el 4,5% (n = 2.585; IC 95% = 4,3-4,7%) presentóictus. Incidencia: 220 casos nuevos por cada 100.000 habitantes. Los pacientes con/sin ictus mostraron: edad, 72,5/53,5 años; varones, 58,2/44,6%; episodios al año, 7,9/4,8; visitas al año, 15,8/8,1; p < 0,001. El ictus tuvo relación independiente con: edad (OR = 1,4), varones (OR = 2,3), diabetes (OR = 1,6), hipertensión (OR = 1,5), fumadores (OR = 1,5), alcoholismo(OR = 1,4), depresión (OR = 1,4), dislipemia (OR = 1,3) y demencias (OR = 1,2). Algunos resultados metabólicos fueron: tensión sistólica (134,1 frente a 127,6 mmHg) y colesterol-LDL (116,4 frente a 126,2 mg/dL), en presencia/ausencia de ictus,p < 0,001. El promedio de coste anual fue de 2.590,36 frente a 985,26 euros, p < 0,001, y se mantuvo después de corregir por edad-sexo y comorbilidades: 1.774,33 (IC 95% = 1.720,10-1.828,55) frente a 1.021,98 euros (IC 95% = 1.010,92-1.033,03), p < 0,001. Todos los componentes del coste fueron mayores en el ictus. Conclusiones. Los pacientes que demandaron atenciónpor ictus presentaron un elevado número de comorbilidades y un mayor coste total/paciente/año. Los objetivos terapéuticos de control siguen siendo mejorables, sobre todo en la prevención primaria de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular

To determinate the prevalence, incidence, co-morbidities and therapeutic objectives and costs of strokeamong Spanish population. Patients and methods. A retrospective study was performed based on data from patients attended for stroke, aged > 30 years, from five Spanish primary care centres and two hospitals in 2006. Comparative group: patientswithout stroke. Main analysed variables were: age, sex, co-morbidity (cardiovascular/others), clinical parameters and direct costs (pharmacy, derivations, visits, emergencies, procurement, and hospitalisation). An ANCOVA analysis and logisticregression were used to fit the model. Results. A 4.5% of 57.026 patients (n = 2.585; CI 95% = 4.3-4.7%) suffered stroke. The incidence of stroke was 220 new-cases/100.000 populations. Main differences between patients suffering stroke/control groupwere: age (72.5 vs. 53.5), men (58.2% vs. 44.6%), episodes/year (7,9 vs. 4,8), visits/year (15,8 vs. 8,1), p < 0,001. Stroke had an independent relation with age (OR = 1,4), male (OR = 2,3), diabetes (OR = 1,6), hypertension (OR = 1,5), smoking (OR =1,5), alcohol (OR = 1,4), depression (OR = 1,4), dyslipidemia (OR = 1,3) and dementia (OR = 1,2). Some of the results were: systolic pressure (134.1 vs. 127.6 mmHg) and LDL-cholesterol (116.4 vs. 126.2 mg/dL), in presence/absence of stroke, p <0,001. The average of annual costs of stroke was 2,590.36 vs. 985.26 euros, p < 0.001. After the correction of the logisticmodel results did not change: 1,774.33 (CI 95% = 1,720.10-1.828.55) vs. 1,021.98 euros (CI 95% = 1,010.92-1,033.03), p <0,001. All components of costs were higher in the stroke group. Conclusions. Patients that demanded assistance for stroke had a higher number of co-morbidities and a higher total cost/patient/year. Therapeutic objectives could be improved, mainly inprimary prevention of cardiovascular risk factors