2011Neurologia medico-chirurgicaOpen access

Efficacy and Safety of Fasudil in Patients With Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Final Results of a Randomized Trial of Fasudil Versus Nimodipine

Jizong Zhao, Ding-biao Zhou, Jing Guo, Zuyuan Ren, Liangfu Zhou, Shuo Wang, Yan Zhang, Bainan Xu, Kuiming Zhao, Renzhi Wang, Ying Mao, Bin Xu, Xiaolin Zhang, the Fasudil Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Study Group

Open full text 102 citations

Abstract

Fasudil is believed to be at least equally effective as nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). We report the final results of a randomized, open trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fasudil with nimodipine. A total of 63 patients undergoing surgery for SAH received fasudil and 66 received nimodipine between 1998 and 2004. Symptomatic vasospasm, low density areas on computed tomography (CT), clinical outcomes, and adverse events were all recorded, and the results were compared between the fasudil and nimodipine groups. Absence of symptomatic vasospasm, occurrence of low density areas associated with vasospasm on CT, and occurrence of adverse events were similar between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were more favorable in the fasudil group than in the nimodipine group (p = 0.040). The proportion of patients with good clinical outcome was 74.5% (41/55) in the fasudil group and 61.7% (37/60) in the nimodipine group. There were no serious adverse events reported in the fasudil group. The present results suggest that fasudil is equally or more effective than nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for SAH.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Fasudil is believed to be at least equally effective as nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). We report the final results of a randomized, open trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fasudil with nimodipine. A total of 63 patients undergoing surgery for SAH received fasudil and 66 received nimodipine between 1998 and 2004. Symptomatic vasospasm, low density areas on computed tomography (CT), clinical outcomes, and adverse events were all recorded, and the results were compared between the fasudil and nimodipine groups. Absence of symptomatic vasospasm, occurrence of low density areas associated with vasospasm on CT, and occurrence of adverse events were similar between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were more favorable in the fasudil group than in the nimodipine group (p = 0.040). The proportion of patients with good clinical outcome was 74.5% (41/55) in the fasudil group and 61.7% (37/60) in the nimodipine group. There were no serious adverse events reported in the fasudil group. The present results suggest that fasudil is equally or more effective than nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for SAH.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 102 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Fasudil is believed to be at least equally effective as nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). We report the final results of a randomized, open trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fasudil with nimodipine. A total of 63 patients undergoing surgery for SAH received fasudil and 66 received nimodipine between 1998 and 2004. Symptomatic vasospasm, low density areas on computed tomography (CT), clinical outcomes, and adverse events were all recorded, and the results were compared between the fasudil and nimodipine groups. Absence of symptomatic vasospasm, occurrence of low density areas associated with vasospasm on CT, and occurrence of adverse events were similar between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were more favorable in the fasudil group than in the nimodipine group (p = 0.040). The proportion of patients with good clinical outcome was 74.5% (41/55) in the fasudil group and 61.7% (37/60) in the nimodipine group. There were no serious adverse events reported in the fasudil group. The present results suggest that fasudil is equally or more effective than nimodipine for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm and subsequent ischemic injury in patients undergoing surgery for SAH.

Key concepts: Nimodipine, Fasudil, Medicine, Subarachnoid hemorrhage, Anesthesia, Vasospasm, Adverse effect, Cerebral vasospasm

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Efficacy and Safety of Fasudil in Patients With Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Final Results of a Randomized Trial of Fasudil Versus Nimodipine — Research Paper | ScholarLens