Evidence Hub

Risk factors for poor outcomes of spontaneous supratentorial cerebral hemorrhage after surgery

Zhang K, Wei L, Zhou X, Yang B, Meng J, Wang P

Journal of neurology, 2022

256 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the outcomes of spontaneous supratentorial cerebral hemorrhage 90 days after surgery.

METHODS: A total of 256 patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage underwent craniotomy evacuation of hematoma. The control group included 120 patients who received conservative treatment. The patients were divided into two subgroups based on a bifurcation of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 90 days after clinical therapeutics: good outcome (mRS score 0-3) and poor outcome (mRS score 4-6). The differences in clinical and imaging data between the two subgroups were analyzed. Based on difference analysis results, a binary logistic regression model was constructed to analyze the influencing factors related to poor outcomes.

RESULTS: The difference analysis results in the surgery group showed statistically significant differences in age, sex, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) on admission, coronary atherosclerosis, smoking, stroke history, blood glucose, D-dimer, hematoma size, deep cerebral hemorrhage, midline shift, hematoma burst into the ventricle, vortex sign, island sign, and black hole sign. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that deep cerebral hemorrhage, midline shift, and age > 58 years independently correlated with the poor outcomes of patients after surgery. The binary logistic regression results of the control group showed that age > 58 years and GCS ≤ 8 independently correlated with the poor outcomes…

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: 256 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