ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Surgery for intracerebral hemorrhage: new evidence and changing perspectives.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Evacuation for Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Contemporary Randomized Trials: Patient Selection, Timing, and Platform Choice.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- Regulatory T cells in intracerebral hemorrhage: mechanisms of immunomodulation and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains the most devastating form of stroke, with limited evidence supporting surgical intervention. Traditional craniotomy has shown no clear benefit in improving long-term outcomes, largely due to procedural invasiveness, delayed timing, and heterogeneous patient selection. Recently, three randomized controlled trials, the ENRICH, MIND, and SWITCH studies, re-examined the surgical management of ICH using distinct approaches and patient populations. The ENRICH trial evaluated early minimally invasive parafascicular surgery (MIPS) for lobar and anterior basal ganglia hemorrhages. Using a Bayesian adaptive design, it demonstrated superior functional outcomes at 180 days, particularly among patients with lobar ICH, with lower mortality and comparable safety to medical therapy. This trial provided the first contemporary evidence that early, image-guided minimally invasive hematoma evacuation can translate into meaningful clinical benefit when applied to carefully selected patients in experienced centers. Conversely, the MIND trial investigated catheter-based aspiration for deep supratentorial ICH. The study enrolled patients with moderate-to-large hematomas who were randomized to minimally invasive evacuation versus standard medical management. Although the procedure achieved substantial clot reduction, demonstrating procedural feasibility and safety, it did not show a statistically significant improvement in functional independence at 180 days. The lack of benefit may be related to the predominance of deep hemorrhages, which are less amenable to surgical evacuation, as well as potentially suboptimal timing of intervention. Lastly, the SWITCH trial investigated decompressive craniectomy without hematoma evacuation for large, deep-seated ICH. Although underpowered due to premature termination, SWITCH suggested a possible reduction in mortality and a trend toward fewer patients with severe disability or death at 6 months, without excess adverse events. However, many survivors remained moderately to severely disabled, underscoring the complexity of outcome interpretation and the need for individualized, patient-centered decision-making.Together, the ENRICH and SWITCH trials collectively challenge decades of therapeutic pessimism in ICH, signaling a shift toward selective, mechanistically informed surgical intervention in ICH, one emphasizing minimally invasive access for lobar bleeds and decompression for malignant deep hemorrhages. Ongoing global studies are expected to further define patient selection, timing, and procedural refinement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.