Evidence Hub

Temporal evolution of non-contrast CT markers of expansion relates to the dynamics of acute intracerebral hemorrhage

Rodriguez-Luna D, Pancorbo O, Sousa JA, Simonetti R, Coscojuela P, Rodrigo-Gisbert M, Rizzo F, Olivé-Gadea M et al.

Neuroradiology, 2025

271 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

PURPOSE: The temporal evolution of non-contrast CT (NCCT) markers of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) expansion during the dynamics of acute ICH is understudied. We aimed to evaluate the temporal evolution of these markers and its relationship with ICH dynamics.

METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational cohort study on 271 ICH patients < 6 h. Patients underwent baseline NCCT and multiphase CTA, and 24-hour NCCT. NCCT markers included: irregular shape, satellite sign, and island sign (shape markers); heterogeneous density, hypodensities, swirl sign, black hole sign, blend sign, and fluid level (qualitative density markers); and mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation hematoma density (quantitative density markers). The spot sign in first phase of multiphase CTA was considered marker of active hemorrhage. Primary outcome was the change in frequency or values of NCCT markers from baseline to follow-up NCCT. Other outcomes included associations of active hemorrhage with NCCT markers at baseline and with the magnitude of their change at follow-up NCCT.

RESULTS: Heterogeneous density predicted active hemorrhage with the highest accuracy (66.4%); hypodensities had the highest AUC (0.626, 95% CI 0.561-0.691). From baseline to follow-up NCCT, the frequency of heterogeneous density (54 [27.8%] vs. 24 [12.4%], p < 0.001) and hypodensities (82 [42.3%] vs. 52 [26.8%], p < 0.001) decreased, with greater reductions when active hemorrhage at baseline (17 [29.0%] vs. 12…

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: 271 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