Efficacy and safety of fasudil in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: final results of a randomized trial of fasudil versus nimodipine
Jizong Zhao, Dingbiao Zhou, Jing Guo, Zuyuan Ren, Liangfu Zhou, Shuo Wang, Yan Zhang, Bainan Xu, Kuiming Zhao, Renzhi Wang, Ying Mao, Bin Xu, Xiaolin Zhang, Fasudil Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Study Group, Jizong Zhao, Dingbiao Zhou, Jing Guo, Zuyuan Ren, Liangfu Zhou, Shuo Wang, Yan Zhang, Bainan Xu, Kuiming Zhao, Renzhi Wang, Ying Mao, Bin Xu, Xiaolin Zhang, Fasudil Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Study Group
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.
Source: PubMed