Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurnal Stroke
Jurnal Stroke
Background and Purpose—Mannitol is often used to reduce cerebral edema in acute intracerebral hemorrhage but without
strong supporting evidence of benefit. We aimed to determine the impact of mannitol on outcome among participants of
the Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT2).
Methods—INTERACT2 was an international, open, blinded end point, randomized controlled trial of 2839 patients with
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (<6 hours) and elevated systolic blood pressure allocated to intensive (target
systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended (target systolic blood pressure, <180
mm Hg) blood pressure–lowering treatment. Propensity score and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate
the relationship between mannitol treatment (within 7 days) and poor outcome, defined by death or major disability on
the modified Rankin Scale score (3–6) at 90 days.
Results—There was no significant difference in poor outcome between mannitol (n=1533) and nonmannitol (n=993)
groups: propensity score–matched odds ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.09; P=0.30) and multivariable
odds ratio of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.07; P=0.18). Although a better outcome was suggested in patients
with larger (≥15 mL) than those with smaller (<15 mL) baseline hematomas who received mannitol (odds ratio, 0.52
[95% confidence interval, 0.35–0.78] versus odds ratio, 0.91 [95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.15]; P homogeneity <0.03
in propensity score analyses), the association was not consistent in analyses across other cutoff points (≥10 and ≥20 mL)
and for differing grades of neurological severity. Mannitol was not associated with excess serious adverse events.
Conclusions—Mannitol seems safe but might not improve outcome in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.
Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00716079.
(Stroke. 2015;46:00-00. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009357.)
Key Words: blood pressure ◼ cerebral hemorrhage ◼ clinical trial ◼ mannitol ◼ propensity score
Received March 7, 2015; final revision received June 17, 2015; accepted July 10, 2015.
From The George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (X.W., H.A., M.W., P.M.-V., E.H.,
C.D., R.I.L., J.C., C.S.A.); Neurology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia (C.D., C.S.A.); Department of Neurology, Nanjing
First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China (J.Y.); Department of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
(S.Z.); Department of Neurology, Hebei Yutian Hospital, Tangshan, China (G.W.); Servicio de Neurología, Departamento de Medicina Clínica Alemana,
Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile (P.M.-V., P.M.L.); Departamento de Ciencias Neurológicas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile (P.M.L.);
Department of Neurology, APHP-Hôpital Lariboisière and DHU NeuroVasc Paris-Sorbonne, Université Paris Diderot-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
(C.S.); Department of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Disease, University of Leicester, Leicester, United
Kingdom (T.R.); Department of Medicine, Westmead Hospital Clinical School, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia (R.I.L.); and Department of
Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia (M.P.).
*For a full list of INTERACT2 Investigators, see reference 11.
The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://stroke.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.
115.009357/-/DC1.
Correspondence to Craig S. Anderson, MD, PhD, The George Institute for Global Health, PO Box M201, Missenden Rd, NSW 2050, Australia. E-mail
canderson@georgeinstitute.org.au
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
Stroke is available at http://stroke.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009357
1
2 Stroke October 2015
trials,8,9 and a systematic review,10 unable to provide evidence Various methods were used to account for the nonrandom alloca-
of a clear treatment effect of mannitol in acute ICH. The pres- tion of mannitol to show consistency of the results. We used opti-
mal matching 1:1 without replacement, with an initial caliper width
ent analysis aimed to determine the impact of use of mannitol
matching algorithm that equates to 0.19 (20% of the SD of the logit
on clinical outcome in patients with acute ICH who partici- of the PS).14 A smaller caliper of 0.1 was also used to potentially
pated in the main phase Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction provide better balancing of covariate imbalances. Generalized esti-
in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT2). Our mating equations were used to test the effect of mannitol on primary
hypothesis was that mannitol would improve outcome in and secondary outcomes, accounting for matching in the PS-matched
subpopulation.15 We next estimated the impact of mannitol using in-
patients with more severe ICH. verse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Stabilized weights
were used to reduce variance of the estimated effect of mannitol and
Methods were incorporated into a logistic regression model that only included
the mannitol variable.17 We also conducted an analysis that was strati-
Study Design fied across fifths of the PS. A summary estimate was calculated using
Details of the INTERACT2 study have been described elsewhere.11,12 unadjusted logistic regression stratified by PS strata.17 Finally, PS was
In summary, this was an international, multicenter, open, blinded used as a covariate in the logistic model to assess the impact of man-
end point assessed, randomized controlled trial, that involved 2839 nitol treatment. Effects of mannitol on outcomes were also estimated
adult patients with computed tomography-confirmed spontaneous in multivariable logistic regression models with the same covariates
ICH within 6 hours of onset and elevated systolic blood pressure as PS. The model was further adjusted by significant medical and
(SBP, 150–220 mm Hg) randomly assigned to receive intensive (SBP surgical treatment factors at 7 days (admission to an intensive care
<140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended (SBP <180 unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic
mm Hg) BP-lowering therapy. Exclusion criteria included a clear in- therapy, and any surgical intervention) to reduce management bias.
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
dication for, or contraindication to intensive BP lowering; low like- Subgroup analyses were also undertaken by key demograph-
lihood of benefit because of severe illness, comorbid condition, or ic variables (age <65 versus ≥65 years; sex) and clinical severity
high likelihood of death; and early planned surgical intervention. The (defined by baseline hematoma volume <15 versus ≥15 mL; and
study protocol was approved by the appropriate ethics committee at National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] scores <15 versus
each participating site, and written informed consent was obtained ≥15 points). Consistency of any association of mannitol and outcome
from the patient or an appropriate surrogate. according to severity of ICH was assessed in sensitivity analyses us-
ing lower (<10 versus ≥10 mL) and higher (<20 versus ≥20 mL) cut-
off points for ICH volume and at lower (<10 versus ≥10) and higher
Procedures and Outcomes (<20 versus ≥20) NIHSS score thresholds for stroke severity. We as-
Patients allocated to the intensive BP-lowering group commenced a sessed the heterogeneity of association in subgroups by adding an
standardized treatment regime involving intravenous and later oral interaction term in the models.
agents, with the goal of achieving a SBP target of <140 mm Hg within As it was not possible to adjust for China region in analyses be-
1 hour and to maintain this level for ≤7 days in hospital. Specific cause of manniol use in these participants, the data were stratified
treatment protocols were developed for each participating region/site, by China and non-China region to assess the consistency of any as-
based on the availability of BP-lowering agents for routine use. For sociation in these broadly different populations using the same PS
patients allocated to the guideline group, BP-lowering treatment was and multivariable modeling approaches. However, we were not able
recommended to achieve a target SBP of ≤180 mm Hg. Data on any to adjust for unaccounted bias, including differences in background
use of mannitol within 7 days of ICH were collected. care. Thus, we used the modified ICH score,18 which has been shown
The primary outcome was death or major disability (defined as a to provide high discrimination for 90-day poor outcome when com-
score of 3–6 on the modified Rankin Scale)13 at 90 days. Secondary pared with other popular prognostic scales,19 to help interpreting this
outcomes were major disability and death (modified Rankin Scale comparison. Data were presented with odds ratios (ORs) and 95%
scores of 3–5, and 6, respectively) at 90 days. The outcome assess- confidence intervals (CI). A 2-sided P<0.05 was set as the level for
ment was undertaken by a site investigator, who was not involved in statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed using
the clinical management of the patient and blind to the randomized SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
treatment allocation.12
Results
Statistical Analysis
After excluding patients with missing data on the outcome or
Because of significant variability in baseline covariates between
patients treated with and without mannitol, we used propensity any covariates, 2526 (89%) patients were included in these
scores (PS) analyses and multivariable models to reduce imbalance. analyses. A total of 1678 patients (839 mannitol users and
Predictors of mannitol treatment and the primary outcome among the 839 nonmannitol users) were PS matched. Table 1 shows the
baseline characteristics of participants were determined by a χ2 test baseline characteristics of patients according to mannitol use;
for binary measures, t test for approximately normally distributed
with all baseline variables included in the multivariable model
variables, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed continuous vari-
ables. A multivariable logistic regression model, including all uni- to generate PS. Table 1 also shows improved balance in the
variate significant predictors of mannitol treatment and the primary distribution of covariates by mannitol use in the PS-matched
outcome, and other clinically important factors (sex and randomized and IPTW subpopulations. However, the 2 groups of patients
BP-lowering treatment), was constructed to produce estimates of the were treated differently over the first 7 days post randomiza-
treatment effect of mannitol (Tables I and II in the online-only Data
Supplement).14,15 On the basis of coefficients from this model, we
tion, and the medical and surgical treatment variables were
generated a PS14,16 for each patient. Only patients with complete data not evenly distributed in PS analyses. The distribution of PS is
were included in the analyses to maximize balancing of the PS analy- shown in Figure I in the online-only Data Supplement.
sis with the largest number of variables and to avoid the need to im- Table 2 shows significantly fewer serious adverse events
pute data. As the variable, China region (for patient recruitment) was over 90 days in mannitol-treated patients. There were 775
both associated with mannitol treatment and the primary outcome; it
was not included in the PS building model because it was so closely (50.6%) patients in the mannitol treatment group than 566
matched with mannitol use as to be insensitive as a discriminator of (57%) of those in the nonmannitol treatment group, who were
mannitol-related outcomes. dead or had major disability at 90 days (crude OR, 0.77; 95%
Wang et al Mannitol and Cerebral Hemorrhage 3
Table 1. Distribution of Patient Characteristics by Mannitol Treatment in Overall, PS-Matched, and IPTW Populations
Overall PS Matched IPTW*
Nonmannitol Nonmannitol Nonmannitol
(n=993) Mannitol (n=1533) (n=839) Mannitol (n=839) (n=993) Mannitol (n=1533)
Demographic
Age, y 67 (13) 61 (12)* 66 (13) 64 (13) 63.0 (15) 64.0 (12)
Male 612 (62) 952 (62) 520 (62) 504 (60) 791.4 (63) 786.1 (62)
Clinical features
NIHSS≥15 293 (30) 421 (28) 244 (29) 237 (28) 367.8 (29) 367.2 (29)
Time to randomization, h 3.6 (2.7–4.6) 3.8 (2.8–4.8) 3.6 (2.7–4.6) 3.8 (2.9–4.8) 3.8 (2.8–4.7) 3.7 (2.9–4.7)
Systolic BP, mm Hg 179 (17) 179 (17) 179 (17) 179 (17) 179.1 (19.1) 179.1 (15.2)
Prior intracerebral hemorrhage 65 (7) 134 (9)† 61 (7) 71 (9) 99.3 (8) 96.0 (8)
Prior ischemic/undifferentiated stroke 89 (9) 197 (13)† 76 (9) 77 (9) 144.9 (12) 143.0 (11)
Heart disease 160 (16) 114 (7)† 86 (10) 79 (9) 137.1 (11) 145.3 (12)
Diabetes mellitus 153 (15) 121 (8)† 105 (13) 80 (10) 134.1 (11) 158.2 (13)
Antihypertensive therapy 533 (54) 605 (40)† 399 (48) 359 (43)† 577.4 (46) 589.1 (47)
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
Use of warfarin anticoagulation/aspirin 224 (23) 85 (6)† 97 (12) 76 (9) 152.5 (12) 178.9 (14)
Use of statin/other lipid-lowering agent 147 (15) 39 (3)† 52 (6) 38 (5) 93.0 (7) 118.6 (9)
Deep location of hematoma‡ 820 (83) 1295 (85) 690 (82) 697 (83) 1044.4 (83) 1045.7 (83)
Left hemisphere site of hematoma 493 (50) 779 (51) 424 (51) 414 (49) 629.7 (50) 651.2 (51)
Hematoma volume at baseline, mL 8.9 (4.3–17.1) 12.1 (6.7–19.9)† 9.3 (4.5–17.9) 10.3 (5.8–18.0) 10.3 (5.4–20.5) 10.8 (5.9–18.7)
Intraventricular extension 274 (28) 422 (28) 234 (28) 244 (29) 357.7 (28) 353.5 (28)
Randomized intensive BP lowering 504 (51) 765 (50) 434 (52) 428 (51) 634.2 (50) 627.9 (50)
Medical and surgical treatment
Intubation 67 (7) 108 (7) 58 (7) 57 (7) 100.4 (8) 94.9 (8)
Admission to an intensive care unit 297 (30) 660 (43)† 266 (32) 373 (45)† 417.1 (33) 576.0 (45)†
Thromboembolism prophylaxis 503 (51) 72 (5)† 398 (47) 45 (5)† 601.2 (48) 99.4 (8)†
Hemostatic therapy§ 56 (6) 32 (2)† 31 (4) 18 (2) 48.5 (4) 28.5 (2)†
Any surgical intervention 37 (4) 105 (7)† 31 (4) 55 (7)† 51.6 (4) 84.3 (7)†
Withdraw active care 58 (6) 53 (4)† 45 (5) 31 (4) 60.6 (5) 47.4 (4)
Data are n (%), mean (SD), or median (interquartile range). BP indicates blood pressure; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; NIHSS, National Institutes
of Health stroke scale; and PS, propensity score.
*Synthetic n values derived from weights.
†P<0.05.
‡Deep location refers to location in the basal ganglia or thalamus.
§The use of fresh frozen plasma, vitamin K, and recombinant tissue factor VIIa.
CI, 0.66–0.91; P<0.01; Figure 1). However, the association smaller (<15 mL) hematomas (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35–0.78
was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline imbal- versus OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.72–1.15; P homogeneity 0.02
ances (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71–1.07; P=0.18), and further in PS-matched analysis; Figure 2). The association was
with the addition of treatment imbalances (OR, 1.02; 95% also significant in IPTW, summary stratified, and covariate
CI, 0.81–1.30; P=0.86). These neutral results were confirmed adjustment using PS analyses, but not either in multivari-
by PS analyses: matching (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75–1.09; able-adjusted analyses or in other sensitivity analyses of dif-
P=0.30), IPTW (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83–1.14; P=0.72), sum- ferent cutoff points (10 and 20 mL; Tables III and IV in the
mary stratified (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77–1.08; P=0.30), and online-only Data Supplement, respectively), despite favorable
covariate adjustment using PS (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77–1.10; trends in the point estimates. Associations for mannitol use
P=0.35). The PS-matched analysis with the smaller caliper of by degree of neurological impairment were not consistent
0.10 showed a similar result (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73–1.09; across analyses: whereas a better outcome was seen for man-
P=0.26). There was no association with the separate outcomes nitol use in those with greater clinical severity (NIHSS≥15)
of death and major disability (data on request) and no het- in PS-matched analysis, summary stratified, and covariate
erogeneity according to sex and age (Figures II and III in the adjustment using PS analyses (all P heterogeneity P<0.05), no
online-only Data Supplement, respectively). significant heterogeneity was evident in the adjusted models,
Our primary subgroup analysis by severity of ICH IPTW, and also in other sensitivity analyses of different cutoff
showed an association of mannitol and reduced poor out- points (10 and 20; Figure 3, Tables V and VI in the online-
come in patients with larger (≥15 mL) when compared with only Data Supplement, respectively). Moreover, subgroup
4 Stroke October 2015
Table 2. Safety Outcomes by Mannitol Treatment associations between Chinese and non-Chinese patients might
be explained by differences in characteristics, management,
Nonmannitol Mannitol
(n=993) (n=1533) P Value and prognosis that were not fully accounted for in analyses
(Tables XIII–XV in the online-only Data Supplement), which
Neurological deterioration in first 24 h 161 (16) 216 (14) 0.12
was supported by a lower proportion of poor outcome in
Non-fatal serious adverse events* 312 (31) 295 (19) <0.01
Chinese patients with the same baseline modified ICH score
Direct effects of the primary ICH event 31 (3) 60 (4) … as in non-Chinese patients (Table XVI in the online-only Data
Cardiovascular disease 44 (4) 26 (2) … Supplement)
Recurrent ICH 2 (0.2) 5 (0.5) …
Ischemic or undifferentiated stroke 10 (1) 4 (0.4) … Discussion
Acute coronary event 4 (0.4) 3 (0.3) … This is the largest study to investigate the impact of mannitol
Other cardiovascular disease 30 (3) 15 (1) … in patients with acute ICH. Overall, there was no significant
Noncardiovascular disease 136 (14) 150 (10) …
difference in frequency of the conventional poor outcome of
death or major disability at 90 days between mannitol and non–
Renal failure 7 (1) 5 (0.5) …
mannitol-treated patients independent of other prognostic fac-
Respiratory infections 53 (5) 48 (3) …
tors assessed across a variety of analyses that took account of
Sepsis (includes other infections) 28 (3) 10 (1) … significant imbalances in baseline and management covariates.
Nonvascular medical 44 (4) 17 (1) … Although there was an apparent benefit of mannitol in patients
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
Data are numbers (%). ICH indicates intracerebral hemorrhage. with larger hematomas (≥15 mL), this was not consistent in
*One patient could have >1 event. analyses across other cutoff points (≥10 and ≥20 mL) and for
differing grades of neurological impairment (NIHSS score cut
analyses of patients with both large hematomas (≥15 mL) and points of 10, 15, and 20). Moreover, the impact of mannitol
greater clinical severity (NIHSS≥15) and of younger patients was not consistent between Chinese and non-Chinese patients,
(age <65 years) with either large hematoma (volume ≥15 mL) but this could be because of other diseases and management
or more severe (NIHSS≥15) showed no clear association of factors because patients with similar predicted prognosis had
mannitol and outcome (Tables VII–IX in the online-only Data different outcomes between the 2 groups. Finally, there was
Supplement, respectively). no evidence that mannitol use was associated with any clear
Analysis of patients recruited from China (Table X in harms such as an increase in renal or cardiac complications,
the online-only Data Supplement) showed a similar neutral or of neurological deterioration, that may have occurred from
association of mannitol and outcome as seen for the whole rebound intracranial hypertension.20–23
population. However, use of mannitol was associated with Few studies have investigated the effects of mannitol in
an increased risk of death or major disability in non-Chinese acute ICH. An observational study6 of 111 consecutive patients
patients (Table XI in the online-only Data Supplement). There within 72 hours of ICH found no association of mannitol on
was no association in Chinese patients with larger ICH (Table survival. Similarly, 2 small randomized controlled trials of 21
XII in the online-only Data Supplement). The disparities in ICH patients with medium- or small-sized hematomas,8 and
Figure 1. Association of mannitol treatment on death or major disability at 90 days. Solid boxes represent estimates of treatment effect
on the risk of outcomes. Centers of boxes are placed at the estimates of the effect; areas of the boxes are proportional to the recipro-
cal of the variance of the estimates. Horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted model 1: adjusted by age, sex,
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≥15, time to randomization, systolic blood pressure (BP), prior intracerebral hemorrhage, prior
ischemic or undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagula-
tion or aspirin, use of statin or other lipid-lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of hematoma, log-transformed
baseline hematoma volume, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP-lowering treatment. Adjusted model 2: model 1+admission to
an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and any surgical intervention. IPTW indi-
cates inverse probability of treatment weighting; and PS, propensity score.
Wang et al Mannitol and Cerebral Hemorrhage 5
Figure 2. Association of mannitol treatment on death or major disability at 90 days by baseline hematoma volume. Solid boxes represent
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
estimates of treatment effect on the risk of outcomes. Centers of boxes are placed at the estimates of the effect; areas of the boxes are
proportional to the reciprocal of the variance of the estimates. Horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted model
1: adjusted by age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≥15, time to randomization, systolic blood pressure (BP), prior intra-
cerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy,
use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin, use of statin or other lipid-lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of
hematoma, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP-lowering treatment. Adjusted model 2: model 1+admission to an intensive care
unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and any surgical intervention. ICH indicates intracerebral
hemorrhage; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; and PS, propensity score.
128 ICH patients within 6 days after onset,9 found no effect of that mannitol has no effect in this population of predominantly
mannitol on early mortality. A Cochrane review of the topic mild to moderate severity of ICH.
concluded with uncertainty over whether mannitol is benefi- Strengths of this study include the large heterogeneous
cial in this clinical setting.10 The much larger data set of >2500 sample of patients recruited from a diverse range of hospi-
patients provided by the INTERACT2 study also indicates tals and healthcare settings, who were assessed according to a
Figure 3. Association between mannitol treatment and death or major disability at 90 days by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale
(NIHSS). Solid boxes represent estimates of treatment effect on the risk of outcomes. Centers of the boxes are placed at the estimates
of the effect; areas of the boxers are proportional to the reciprocal of the variance of the estimates. Horizontal lines represent 95% con-
fidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted model 1: adjusted by sex, age, time to randomization, systolic blood pressure (BP), prior intracerebral
hemorrhage, prior ischemic or undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of
warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin, use of statin or other lipid-lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of hema-
toma, log-transformed baseline hematoma volume, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP-lowering treatment. Adjusted model 2:
model 1+admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and any surgical
intervention. IPTW indicates inverse probability of treatment weighting; and PS, propensity score.
6 Stroke October 2015
standardized protocol and objective measures. We also under- 3. Kalita J, Misra UK, Ranjan P. Prescribing pattern of antiedema ther-
apy in stroke by neurologists and general physicians. Neurol India.
took PS-matched analysis, which allowed us to mimic some
2004;52:191–193.
of the characteristics of a randomized controlled trial, and the 4. Shawkat H, Mortimer A. Mannitol: a review of its clinical uses. Contin
numerous subgroup and sensitivity analyses strengthen the Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2012;12:82–85.
consistency of the findings. Although a benefit of mannitol 5. Hemphill JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, Becker K, Bendok BR,
Cushman M, et al. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous
was suggested in larger hematomas (>15 mL), the absence intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from
of a clear dose–response relationship in smaller and larger the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke.
hematomas indicates that the former was likely to have been 2015;46:2032–2060. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000069.
a spurious finding. Furthermore, the worse outcome for man- 6. Bereczki D, Mihálka L, Szatmári S, Fekete K, Di Cesar D, Fülesdi B, et
al. Mannitol use in acute stroke: case fatality at 30 days and 1 year. Stroke.
nitol use in non-Chinese participants seems to relate more to 2003;34:1730–1735. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000078658.52316.E8.
background differences in prognosis between Chinese and 7. Gigliuto CM, Stone KE, Algus M. The use of mannitol in intracerebral
non-Chinese patients rather than from mannitol. bleeds in the medical ICU. N J Med. 1991;88:48–51.
8. Kalita J, Misra UK, Ranjan P, Pradhan PK, Das BK. Effect of mannitol
However, there are limitations to our analytic approaches, on regional cerebral blood flow in patients with intracerebral hemor-
where mannitol was administered according to the discre- rhage. J Neurol Sci. 2004;224:19–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2004.05.019.
tion of investigators, with variable doses and duration of 9. Misra UK, Kalita J, Ranjan P, Mandal SK. Mannitol in intracerebral
treatment that were not captured in this study. Furthermore, hemorrhage: a randomized controlled study. J Neurol Sci. 2005;234:41–
45. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2005.03.038.
mannitol was much more frequently used in China than for 10. Bereczki D, Fekete I, Prado GF, Liu M. Mannitol for acute stroke.
the other countries, which could have introduced bias despite Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD001153.
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
our efforts to balance the baseline characteristics of patients. 11. Anderson CS, Heeley E, Huang Y, Wang J, Stapf C, Delcourt C, et al;
Because these analyses were not prespecified, they are prone INTERACT2 Investigators. Rapid blood-pressure lowering in patients
with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2355–
to random error and incomplete adjustment for potential con- 2365. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214609.
founding, especially because we were unable to address all 12. Delcourt C, Huang Y, Wang J, Heeley E, Lindley R, Stapf C, et al;
potential management confounders in analyses. Finally, the INTERACT2 Investigators. The second (main) phase of an open, ran-
domised, multicentre study to investigate the effectiveness of an intensive
data are prone to selection bias by using a clinical trial popu- blood pressure reduction in acute cerebral haemorrhage trial (INTERACT2).
lation, where patients with a poor prognosis because of mas- Int J Stroke. 2010;5:110–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2010.00415.x.
sive hematoma or deep coma, and those with early surgery, 13. Bamford JM, Sandercock PA, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver
being excluded. Thus, the study sample may have been too agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke.
1989;20:828.
small to adequately assess the effects of mannitol in patients 14. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the
with large hematomas. effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res.
We conclude that the use of mannitol is safe but might not 2011;46:399–424. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
15. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery
improve outcome in patients with acute ICH. In the absence of
literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for
definitive evidence from future randomized controlled trials, improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1128–1135. doi:
these data may serve as a guide in the management of patients. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.021.
16. Brookhart MA, Wyss R, Layton JB, Stürmer T. Propensity score
methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research.
Sources of Funding Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:604–611. doi: 10.1161/
The second Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000359.
Hemorrhage Trial study was supported by Program (571281) and 17. Lanehart RE, Rodriguez de Gil P, Kim ES, Bellara AP, Kromrey JD,
Project (512402 and 1004170) grants from the National Health and Lee RS. Propensity score analysis and assessment of propensity score
Medical Research Council of Australia. The study was designed, con- approaches using SAS procedures. SAS Web site. http://support.sas.com/
ducted, analyzed, and interpreted by the investigators independent of resources/papers/proceedings12/314–2012.pdf. Acceesed April 22, 2012.
sponsors. 18. Cho DY, Chen CC, Lee WY, Lee HC, Ho LH. A new Modified
Intracerebral Hemorrhage score for treatment decisions in basal ganglia
hemorrhage–a randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:2151–2156.
Disclosures doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318173fc99.
Dr Anderson reports membership of Advisory Boards for Pfizer and 19. Heeley E, Anderson CS, Woodward M, Arima H, Robinson T, Stapf C,
The Medicines Company, and receiving travel reimbursement and et al. Poor utility of grading scales in acute intracerebral hemorrhage:
honorarium from Takeda China and Covidien. Dr Lavados reports Results from the INTERACT2 trial [published online ahead of print
grants from the George Institute for Global Health as a national leader June 4, 2015]. Int J Stroke. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/
ijs.12518/epdf. Accessed June 4, 2015.
of Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage
20. García-Sola R, Pulido P, Capilla P. The immediate and long-term effects
Trial (INTERACT) 2.
of mannitol and glycerol. A comparative experimental study. Acta
Neurochir (Wien). 1991;109:114–121.
References 21. Kofke WA. Mannitol: potential for rebound intracranial hypertension? J
1. Woster PS, LeBlanc KL. Management of elevated intracranial pressure. Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1993;5:1–3.
Clin Pharm. 1990;9:762–772. 22. Node Y, Nakazawa S. Clinical study of mannitol and glycerol on raised
2. Wei JW, Huang Y, Wang JG, Liu M, Wong LK, Huang Q, et al; intracranial pressure and on their rebound phenomenon. Adv Neurol.
ChinaQUEST Investigators. Current management of intracerebral haem- 1990;52:359–363.
orrhage in China: a national, multi-centre, hospital register study. BMC 23. Oken DE. Renal and extrarenal considerations in high-dose mannitol
Neurol. 2011;11:16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-11-16. therapy. Ren Fail. 1994;16:147–159.
Mannitol and Outcome in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Propensity Score and Multivariable
Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial 2 Results
Xia Wang, Hisatomi Arima, Jie Yang, Shihong Zhang, Guojun Wu, Mark Woodward, Paula
Muñoz-Venturelli, Pablo M. Lavados, Christian Stapf, Thompson Robinson, Emma Heeley,
Candice Delcourt, Richard I. Lindley, Mark Parsons, John Chalmers and Craig S. Anderson
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on January 2, 2018
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the
World Wide Web at:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/08/11/STROKEAHA.115.009357
Permissions: Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally published
in Stroke can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Office.
Once the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, click
Request Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about this
process is available in the Permissions and Rights Question and Answer document.
Xia Wang MMed,1 Hisatomi Arima MD PhD,1 Jie Yang PhD,3 Shihong Zhang MD,4 Guojun
Wu MD,5 Mark Woodward PhD,1 Paula Muñoz-Venturelli MD,1,6 Pablo M Lavados MD,6,7
Christian Stapf MD,8 Thompson Robinson MD,9 Emma Heeley PhD,1 Candice Delcourt
MD,1,2 Richard I Lindley MD,1,10 Mark Parsons MD PhD,11 John Chalmers MD,1 Craig S
Anderson MD PhD,1,2 for the INTERACT2 Investigators
1
The George Institute for Global Health, School of public health, the University of Sydney
2
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
3
Department of Neurology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing,
China
4
Department of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
5
Department of Neurology, Hebei Yutian Hospital, Tangshan, China
6
Servicio de Neurología, Departamento de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del
Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
7
Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
8
Department of Neurology, APHP - Hôpital Lariboisière and DHU NeuroVasc Paris -
Sorbonne, Univ Paris Diderot - Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
9
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit in
Cardiovascular Disease, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
10
Westmead Hospital Clinical School, Westmead, NSW, Australia
11
Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New
South Wales, Australia
1
Supplemental Table I. Baseline characteristics by mannitol use
Non-mannitol Mannitol
Variable (N=1037) (N=1707) P value
Age, yr 67 (13) 61 (12) <0.01
Male 648 (63) 165 (62) 0.96
Recruited from China 292 (28) 1583 (93) <0.01
NIHSS 10 (6-16) 11 (6-15) 0.50
NIHSS ≥15 300 (29) 468 (27) 0.39
Time to randomization, hr 3.7 (2.8-4.6) 3.8 (2.9-4.8) 0.03
Systolic BP, mmHg, 179 (17) 179 (17) 0.41
Diastolic BP, mmHg, 97 (16) 104 (13) <0.01
History of hypertension 757 (73) 1229 (72) 0.60
Prior intracerebral hemorrhage 67 (7) 152 (9) 0.02
Prior ischemic/undifferentiated stroke 92 (9) 221 (13) <0.01
Heart disease 166 (16) 124 (7) <0.01
Diabetes mellitus 159 (15) 136 (8) <0.01
Current use of antihypertensive therapy 555 (54) 684 (40) <0.01
Use of warfarin anticoagulation/aspirin 231 (22) 93 (6) <0.01
Use of insulin/oral hypoglycemic agents 114 (11) 65 (4) <0.01
Use of statin/other lipid lowering 151 (15) 42 (3) <0.01
Deep location of hematoma* 820 (83) 1308 (85) 0.18
Left hemisphere site of hematoma 493 (50) 785 (51) 0.58
Hematoma volume at baseline, mL 8.9 (4.3-17.1) 12.1 (6.6-19.9) <0.01
Intraventricular extension 274 (28) 434 (28) 0.79
Randomized BP lowering treatment 512 (49) 850 (50) 0.83
Data are numbers (%), mean (SD) or median (IQR)
NIHSS, denotes National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale; BP, blood pressure
*Deep location refers to location in the basal ganglia or thalamus
2
Supplemental Table II. Baseline characteristics and death or major disability at 90 days
3
Supplemental Table III. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days by baseline hematoma volume ≥10mL
Model Baseline hematoma volume ≥10mL Mannitol N Events (%) OR (95%CI) P homogeneity
1
Adjusted No No 548 241 (44.0) 0.966
Yes 620 221 (35.7) 0.92 (0.69-1.22)
Yes No 445 325 (73.0)
Yes 913 554 (63.0) 0.87 (0.65-1.16)
2
Adjusted No No 548 241 (44.0) 0.977
Yes 620 221 (35.7) 1.18 (0.85-1.64)
Yes No 445 325 (73.0)
Yes 913 554 (63.0) 0.91 (0.64-1.30)
PS matched No No 455 183 (40.2) 0.554
Yes 455 169 (37.1) 0.88 (0.67-1.16)
Yes No 381 268 (70.3)
Yes 381 247 (64.8) 0.78 (0.58-1.05)
IPTW No No 548 241 (44.0) 0.185
Yes 620 221 (35.7) 1.05 (0.83-1.33)
Yes No 445 325 (73.0)
Yes 913 554 (63.0) 0.85 (0.68-1.06)
Summary stratified No No 548 241 (44.0) 0.190
Yes 620 221 (35.7) 0.91 (0.71-1.17)
Yes No 445 325 (73.0)
Yes 913 554 (63.0) 0.77 (0.59-1.00)
Covariate adjustment No No 548 241 (44.0) 0.174
Using the PS Yes 620 221 (35.7) 0.94 (0.73-1.21)
Yes No 445 325 (73.0)
Yes 913 554 (63.0) 0.80 (0.61-1.04)
CI denotes confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PS, propensity score; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Adjusted model 1: Adjusted by age, sex, NIHSS ≥15, time to randomization, systolic BP, prior intracerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or
undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin, use of
4
statin or other lipid lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of hematoma, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP
lowering treatment
Adjusted model 2: model 1 + admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and
any surgical intervention
5
Supplemental Table IV. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days by greater (≥20mL) baseline hematoma volume
Model Baseline hematoma volume ≥20mL Mannitol N Events (%) OR(95%CI) P homogeneity
Adjusted1 No No 783 393 (50.2) 0.638
Yes 1150 492 (42.8) 0.95 (0.77-1.18)
Yes No 210 173 (82.4)
Yes 383 283 (73.9) 0.98 (0.60-1.61)
2
Adjusted No No 783 393 (50.2) 0.888
Yes 1150 492 (42.8) 1.19 (0.92-1.55)
Yes No 210 173 (82.4)
Yes 383 283 (73.9) 0.96 (0.54-1.73)
PS matched No No 662 313 (47.3) 0.370
Yes 662 293 (44.3) 0.89 (0.71-1.10)
Yes No 179 142 (79.3)
Yes 179 135 (75.4) 0.80 (0.49-1.30)
IPTW No No 783 393 (50.2) 0.690
Yes 1150 492 (42.8) 1.04 (0.87-1.24)
Yes No 210 173 (82.4)
Yes 383 283 (73.9) 0.95 (0.65-1.39)
Summary stratified No No 783 393 (50.2) 0.311
Yes 1150 492 (42.8) 0.95 (0.78-1.16)
Yes No 210 173 (82.4)
Yes 383 283(73.9) 0.90 (0.57-1.42)
Covariate adjustment No No 783 393 (50.2) 0.305
Using the PS Yes 1150 492 (42.8) 0.97 (0.79-1.18)
Yes No 210 173 (82.4)
Yes 383 283 (73.9) 0.96 (0.61-1.51)
CI denotes confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PS, propensity score; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Adjusted model 1: Adjusted by age, sex, NIHSS ≥15, time to randomization, systolic BP, prior intracerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or
undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin, use of
statin or other lipid lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of hematoma, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP
lowering treatment
6
Adjusted model 2: model 1 + admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and
any surgical intervention
7
Supplemental Table V. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days by NIHSS
score ≥10
8
Supplemental Table VI. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days by NIHSS
score ≥20
9
Supplemental Table VII. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days in patients
with both large (≥15mL) hematomas and greater clinical severity (NIHSS ≥15)
10
Supplemental Table VIII. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days in patients
who were aged <65 years with large hematomas (≥15mL)
11
Supplemental Table IX. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days in patients
who were aged <65 years with baseline NIHSS scores ≥15
12
Supplemental Table X. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days in patients
from China
13
Supplemental Table XI. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days in non-China
patients
14
Supplemental Table XII. Mannitol and death or major disability at 90 days by baseline hematoma volume in patients from China
Model Baseline hematoma volume ≥15mL Mannitol N Events (%) OR (95%CI) P homogeneity
Adjusted1 No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.116
Yes 894 345 (38.6) 1.50 (1.06-2.14)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 527 342 (64.9) 0.75 (0.36-1.57)
Adjusted2 No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.141
Yes 894 345 (38.6) 1.45 (1.01-2.07)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 527 342 (64.9) 0.77 (0.37-1.63)
PS matched No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.379
Yes 227 84 (37.0) 1.43 (0.96-2.14)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 41 26 (63.4) 0.90 (0.35-2.34)
IPTW No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.676
Yes 894 345 (38.6) 1.23 (0.96-1.57)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 527 342 (64.9) 1.13 (0.80-1.58)
Summary stratified No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.370
Yes 894 345 (38.6) 1.22 (0.88-1.70)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 527 342 (64.9) 0.85 (0.43-1.68)
Covariate adjustment No No 227 66 (29.1) 0.505
Using the PS Yes 894 345 (38.6) 1.19 (0.85-1.66)
Yes No 41 27 (65.9)
Yes 527 342 (64.9) 0.83 (0.42-1.65)
CI denotes confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PS, propensity score; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Adjusted model 1: Adjusted by age, sex, NIHSS ≥15, time to randomization, systolic BP, prior intracerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or
undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin, use of
15
statin or other lipid lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of hematoma, intraventricular extension, and randomized BP
lowering treatment
Adjusted model 2: model 1 + admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and
any surgical intervention
16
Supplemental Table XIII. Baseline characteristics of participants by region
Non-China China P value
Parameter (N=909) (N=1920)
Time from onset of ICH to randomization, hr 3.6 (2.8-4.7) 3.8 (2.9-4.7) 0.02
Age, yr 68±13 61.3±12 0.02
Male 584 (64) 1196 (62) 0.31
Systolic BP, mmHg 180±17 179±17 0.04
Diastolic BP, mmHg 96±16 104±13 <0.01
NIHSS score* 12 (7-17) 10 (5-14) <0.01
GCS score† 15 (13-15) 14 (12-15) <0.01
History of hypertension 641/909 (71) 1407/1917 (73) 0.11
Current use of antihypertensive drugs 507/909 (56) 767/1917 (40) <0.01
Prior intracerebral hemorrhage 58/909 (6) 171/1917 (9) 0.02
Prior ischemic or undifferentiated stroke 78/909 (9) 245/1920 (13) <0.01
Prior acute coronary event 52/909 (6) 29/1917 (2) <0.01
Diabetes mellitus 152/909 (17) 153/1764 (8) <0.01
Use of warfarin anticoagulation 73/909 (8) 8/1917 (0) <0.01
Use of aspirin or other antiplatelet agent 198/909 (22) 67/1920 (4) <0.01
Baseline hematoma volume, mL 11 (6-23) 11 (6-18) 0.40
Deep location of hematoma‡ 707/876 (81) 1475/1737 (85) 0.01
Left hemisphere site of hematoma 436/876 (50) 877/1737 (51) 0.73
Intraventricular extension of hemorrhage 273/876 (31) 467/1737 (27) 0.02
Data are n (%), mean (SD), or median (IQR).
BP indicates blood pressure; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health stroke scale.
*Scores range from 0 (normal) to 42 (coma with quadriplegia).
†Scores range from 15 (normal) to 3 (deep coma)
‡Location in the basal ganglia or thalamus
17
Supplemental Table XIV. Management of patients by region
Non-China China
Parameter (N=909) (N=1920) P value
Time from ICH to BP lowering treatment, hr 3.9 (2.8-5.3) 4.1 (3.0-5.5) 0.01
Time from randomisation to BP lowering treatment, hr 0.2 (0.0-0.6) 0.1 (0.0-0.7) 0.04
Any BP lowering treatment in first 24 hours 743 (82) 1130 (59) <0.01
Intubation 112/894 (13) 77/1885 (4) <0.01
Admission to an intensive care unit 304/894 (34) 757/1885 (40) <0.01
Prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis 596/894 (67) 14/1885 (1)
Compression stockings used 283/894 (32) 10/1885 (1)
Subcutaneous heparin administered 489/894 (55) 4/1885 (0)
Use of intravenous mannitol 127/894 (14) 1592/1885 (85) <0.01
Hemostatic therapy* 70/894 (8) 27/1885 (1) <0.01
Any surgical intervention 49/894 (6) 105/1885 (6) 0.92
Evacuation or decompression of the hematoma 24/894 (3) 57/1885 (3) 0.62
Insertion of a ventricular drain 29/894 (3) 56/1885 (3) 0.70
Decision to withdraw active treatment and care 58/894 (7) 63/1885 (3) <0.01
ICH denotes intracerebral haemorrhage; BP, blood pressure
*Includes the use of fresh frozen plasma, vitamin K, and recombinant tissue Factor VIIa.
18
Supplemental Table XV. Death or major disability at 90 days by region
Non-China China OR (95% CI) P value aOR (95% CI)* P value
Outcome (N=909) (N=1920)
Death or major disability 593/884 (67) 911/1910 (48) 0.45 (0.38-0.53) <0.01 0.66 (0.54-0.82) <0.01
OR denotes odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; aOR, adjusted OR
*adjusted by age, sex, prior ICH, antithrombotictherapy, national Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score ≥15, baseline hematoma
volume, deep location of hematoma, and randomized treatment.
19
Table XVI. Modified intracerebral haemorrhage score and death or major disability by region
Death or major disability, n(%)
MICH score China Non-China
0 231(29.2) 202(51.9)
1 340(54.4) 200(75.8)
2 174(75.7) 102(83.6)
3 57(85.1) 59(92.2)
4 15(93.8) 13(100.0)
20
1
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
No Yes
Mannitol treatment
21
Supplemental Figure II. Association between mannitol treatment and death or major
disability at 90 days, by gender
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; PS, propensity score; IPTW, inverse probability of
treatment weighting.
Solid boxes represent estimates of treatment effect on the risk of outcomes. Centers of the
boxes are placed at the estimates of the effect; areas of the boxers are proportional to the
reciprocal of the variance of the estimates. Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs.
Adjusted model 1: Adjusted by age, NIHSS ≥15, time to randomization, systolic BP, prior
intracerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes
mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin,
use of statin or other lipid lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of
hematoma, log transformed baseline hematoma volume, intraventricular extension, and
randomized BP lowering treatment
Adjusted model 2: model 1 + admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for
deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and any surgical intervention.
22
Supplemental Figure III. Association between mannitol treatment and death or major
disability at 90 days by age (yr)
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; PS, propensity score; IPTW, inverse probability of
treatment weighting.
Solid boxes represent estimates of treatment effect on the risk of outcomes. Centres of the
boxes are placed at the estimates of the effect; areas of the boxers are proportional to the
reciprocal of the variance of the estimates. Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs.
Adjusted model 1: Adjusted by sex, NIHSS ≥15, time to randomization, systolic BP, prior
intracerebral hemorrhage, prior ischemic or undifferentiated stroke, heart disease, diabetes
mellitus, current use of antihypertensive therapy, use of warfarin anticoagulation or aspirin,
use of statin or other lipid lowering agent, deep location of hematoma, left hemisphere site of
hematoma, log transformed baseline hematoma volume, intraventricular extension, and
randomized BP lowering treatment
Adjusted model 2: model 1 + admission to an intensive care unit, prophylactic treatment for
deep venous thrombosis, hemostatic therapy, and any surgical intervention.
23
25
Abstract 1
뇌내출혈에서 만니톨과 결과
성향점수와 다변수 INTERACT2
(Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial 2) 결과