Evidence Hub

The comprehensive comparison of imaging sign from CT angiography and noncontrast CT for predicting intracranial hemorrhage expansion: A comparative study

Chung GH, Goo JH, Kwak HS, Hwang SB

Medicine, 2022

250 participants

Abstract

Expansion of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is an important predictor of poor clinical outcomes. Various imaging markers on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA) have been reported as predictors of ICH expansion. We aimed to compare the associations between various CT imaging markers and ICH expansion. Patients with spontaneous ICH who underwent initial NCCT, CTA, and subsequent NCCT between January 2016 and December 2019 were retrospectively identified. ICH expansion was defined as a volume increase of > 33% or > 6 mL. We analyzed the presence of imaging markers such as the black hole sign, blend sign, island sign, or swirl sign on initial NCCT or spot sign on CTA. An alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed using a 4-point scoring system based on the consensus of the reviewers. The predictive value of each marker was assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. A total of 250 patients, including 60 (24.0%) with ICH expansion, qualified for the analysis. Among the patients with spontaneous ICH, 118 (47.2%) presented with a black hole sign, 52 (20.8%) with a blend sign, 93 (37.2%) with an island sign, 79 (31.6%) with a swirl sign, and 56 (22.4%) with a spot sign. In univariate logistic regression, the initial ICH volume (P = .038), initial intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) presence (P < .001), swirl sign (P < .001), and spot sign (P < .001) were associated…

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: 250 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