Current management of cerebral aneurysms: is it based on facts or myths?

  • Ausman J
  • Diaz F
  • Malik G
 et al. 
  • 1

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • N/A

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

The overall morbidity and mortality from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage have not changed significantly over the past 30 years in spite of great progress in surgical technology and diagnostic capabilities. Most series report major morbidity and mortality figures of approximately 60%. The reason for the currently poor prognosis is due, in part, to the sometimes devastating effect of the initial hemorrhage over which we have no control. Another reason for our inability to improve these dismal statistics may be that the currently accepted treatment regimens have proven to be ineffective. Eighteen misconceptions or "myths" surrounding the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage have been identified as factors that have largely determined the currently accepted, ineffective treatment protocols, and these are discussed.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Adult
  • Age Factors
  • Aged
  • Antifibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use
  • Cerebral Angiography
  • Humans
  • Hypotension, Controlled
  • Intracranial Aneurysm/radiography/*surgery
  • Intraoperative Care
  • Ischemic Attack, Transient/drug therapy/radiograph
  • Middle Aged
  • Nicotinic Acids/therapeutic use
  • Nimodipine
  • Rupture, Spontaneous
  • Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/drug therapy/radiography/s
  • Time Factors

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • J I Ausman

  • F G Diaz

  • G M Malik

  • A S Fielding

  • C S Son

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free