Evidence Hub

Noncontrast Computed Tomography Markers as Predictors of Revised Hematoma Expansion in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Yang WS, Zhang SQ, Shen YQ, Wei X, Zhao LB, Xie XF, Deng L, Li XH et al.

Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021

314 participants

Abstract

Background Noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) markers are the emerging predictors of hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage. However, the relationship between NCCT markers and the dynamic change of hematoma in parenchymal tissues and the ventricular system remains unclear. Methods and Results We included 314 consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage admitted to our hospital from July 2011 to May 2017. The intracerebral hemorrhage volumes and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) volumes were measured using a semiautomated, computer-assisted technique. Revised hematoma expansion (RHE) was defined by incorporating the original definition of hematoma expansion into IVH growth. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to compare the performance of the NCCT markers in predicting the IVH growth and RHE. Of 314 patients in our study, 61 (19.4%) had IVH growth and 93 (23.9%) had RHE. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, blend sign, black hole sign, island sign, and expansion-prone hematoma could independently predict IVH growth and RHE in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Expansion-prone hematoma had a higher predictive performance of RHE than any single marker. The diagnostic accuracy of RHE in predicting poor prognosis was significantly higher than that of hematoma expansion. Conclusions The NCCT markers are independently associated with IVH growth and RHE. Furthermore, the expansion-prone hematoma has a higher…

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: 314 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