Evidence Hub

Comparison of different noncontrast computed tomographic markers for predicting early perihematomal edema expansion in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

Li YL, Zheng YN, Zhang LJ, Li ZQ, Deng L, Lv XN, Li Q, Lv FJ

Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia, 2023

214 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) imaging markers are associated with early perihematomal edema (PHE) growth. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of different NCCT markers in predicting early PHE expansion.

METHODS

ICH patients who underwent baseline CT scan within 6 h of symptoms onset and follow-up CT scan within 36 h between July 2011 and March 2017 were included in this study. The predictive value of hypodensity, satellite sign, heterogeneous density, irregular shape, blend sign, black hole sign, island sign and expansion-prone hematoma for early perihematomal edema expansion were assessed, separately.

RESULTS

214 patients were included in our final analysis. After adjusting for ICH characteristics, hypodensity, blend sign, island sign and expansion-prone hematoma are still predictors of early perihematomal edema expansion in multivariable logistics regression analysis (all P < 0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of expansion-prone hematoma was significantly larger than the area under the ROC curve of hypodensity, blend sign and island sign in predicting PHE expansion (P = 0.003, P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with single NCCT imaging markers, expansion-prone hematoma seems to be optimal predictor for early PHE expansion than any single NCCT imaging marker.

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