Evidence Hub

Triage of 5 Noncontrast Computed Tomography Markers and Spot Sign for Outcome Prediction After Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Sporns PB, Kemmling A, Schwake M, Minnerup J, Nawabi J, Broocks G, Wildgruber M, Fiehler J et al.

Stroke, 2018

201 participants

Abstract

Background and Purpose- Besides the established spot sign (SS) in computed tomography angiography (CTA), there is growing evidence that different imaging markers in noncontrast CT offer great value for outcome prediction in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, it is unclear how the concurrent presence of each sign independently contributes to the predictive power of poor outcome. We, therefore, aimed to clarify the predictive value of 5 recently published noncontrast CT parameters (blend sign, black hole sign, island sign, hematoma heterogeneity, and hypodensities) and the established SS in 1 consecutive series of patients with ICH. Methods- Retrospective study of patients with ICH at 2 German tertiary stroke centers; inclusion criteria were (1) spontaneous ICH and (2) noncontrast CT and CTA performed on admission within 6 hours after onset of symptoms. We defined a binary outcome (good outcome [modified Rankin Scale score of ≤3] versus poor outcome [modified Rankin Scale score of >3]) at discharge. The predictive value of each sign was assessed in univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. Results- Of 201 patients with spontaneous ICH, 28 (13.9%) presented with black hole sign, 38 (18.9%) with blend sign, 120 (59.7%) with hypodensities, 97 (48.3%) with heterogeneous densities, 53 with island sign (26.4%), and 45 (22.4%) with SS. In univariable logistic regression, higher hematoma volume ( P<0.001), intraventricular hemorrhage ( P=0.002), and…

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: 201 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