Evidence Hub

Relationship Between Non-contrast Computed Tomography Imaging Markers and Perihemorrhagic Edema Growth in Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Li YL, Lv XN, Wei X, Yang WS, Li R, Deng L, Wei M, Li Q et al.

Neurocritical care, 2021

214 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Perihemorrhagic edema (PHE) growth has been gradually considered as predictor for outcome of Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients. The aim of our study was to investigate correlation between non-contrast computed tomography (CT) markers and early PHE growth.

METHODS: ICH patients between July 2011 and March 2017 were included in this retrospective analysis. ICH and PHE volumes were measured by using a validated semiautomatic volumetric algorithm. Nonparametric test was used for comparing PHE volume at different time points of non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) imaging markers. Multivariable linear regression was constructed to study the relationship between NCCT imaging markers and PHE growth over 36 h.

RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included. Nonparametric test showed that PHE volume was significantly different between patients with and without NCCT imaging markers. (all p < 0.05) In multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for ICH characteristics, blend sign (p = 0.011), black hole sign (p = 0.002), island sign (p < 0.001), and expansion-prone hematoma (p < 0.001) were correlated with PHE growth. Follow-up PHE volume within 36 h after baseline CT scan was associated with blend sign (p = 0.001), island sign (p < 0.001), and expansion-prone hematoma (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: NCCT imaging markers of hematoma expansion are associated with PHE growth. This suggests that early PHE growth can be predicted using radiology markers on admission CT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 214 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free