Ultra-Early and Short-Term Tranexamic Acid Treatment in Patients With Good- and Poor-Grade Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Background and Objectives The results of the ULTRA trial showed that ultra-early and short-term treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) does not improve clinical outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Possibly, the lack of a beneficial effect in all patients with aSAH is masked by antagonistic effects of TXA in certain subgroups. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we investigated the effect of TXA on clinical outcome in patients with good-grade and poor-grade aSAH. Methods The ULTRA trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment. Participants received ultra-early and short-term TXA in addition to usual care or usual care only. This post hoc subgroup analysis included only ULTRA participants with confirmed aSAH and available World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) grade on admission. Patients were categorized into those with good-grade (WFNS 1-3) and poor-grade (WFNS 4-5) aSAH. The primary outcome was clinical outcome assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using ordinal regression analyses. Analyses were performed using the as-treated principle. In all patients with aSAH, no significant effect modification of TXA on clinical outcome was observed for admission WFNS grade (p = 0.10). Results Of the 812 ULTRA participants, 473 patients had (58%; N = 232 TXA, N = 241 usual care) good-grade and 339 (42%; N = 162 TXA, N = 176 usual care) patients had poor-grade aSAH. In patients with good-grade aSAH, the TXA group had worse clinical outcomes (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.94, aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.94) compared with the usual care group. In patients with poor-grade aSAH, clinical outcomes were comparable between treatment groups (OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.70-1.55, aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.56). Discussion This post hoc subgroup analysis provides another important argument against the use of TXA treatment in patients with aSAH, by showing worse clinical outcomes in patients with good-grade aSAH treated with TXA and no clinical benefit of TXA in patients with poor-grade aSAH, compared with patients treated with usual care.