Evidence Hub

NCCT Markers of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion Using Revised Criteria: An External Validation of Their Predictive Accuracy

Ducroux C, Nehme A, Rioux B, Panzini MA, Fahed R, Gioia LC, Létourneau-Guillon L

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2023

124 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several NCCT expansion markers have been proposed to improve the prediction of hematoma expansion. We retrospectively evaluated the predictive accuracy of 9 expansion markers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients admitted for intracerebral hemorrhage within 24 hours of last seen well were retrospectively included from April 2016 to April 2020. The primary outcome was revised hematoma expansion, defined as any of a ≥6-mL or ≥33% increase in intracerebral hemorrhage volume, a ≥ 1-mL increase in intraventricular hemorrhage volume, or de novo intraventricular hemorrhage. We assessed the predictive accuracy of expansion markers and determined their association with revised hematoma expansion.

RESULTS: We included 124 patients, of whom 51 (41%) developed revised hematoma expansion. The sensitivity of each marker for the prediction of revised hematoma expansion ranged from 4% to 78%; the specificity, 37%-97%; the positive likelihood ratio, 0.41-7.16; and the negative likelihood ratio, 0.49-1.06. By means of univariable logistic regressions, 5 markers were significantly associated with revised hematoma expansion: black hole (OR = 8.66; 95% CI, 2.15-58.14; P = .007), hypodensity (OR = 3.18; 95% CI, 1.49-6.93; P = .003), blend (OR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.08-8.38; P = .04), satellite (OR = 2.84; 95% CI, 1.29-6.61; P = .01), and Barras shape (OR = 2.41, 95% CI; 1.17-5.10; P = .02). In multivariable models, only the black hole marker remained independently associated with…

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: 124 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