Evidence Hub

The “SALPARE study” of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage—part 2-early CT predictors of outcome in ICH: keeping it simple

R. Manara, Ludovica De Rosa, Francesca Vodret, Caterina Kulyk, Renato Pennella, Eleonora Contrino, G. Cester, F. Causin et al.

Neurological Research and Practice, 2023

682 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic role of hematoma characteristics and hematoma expansion (HE) in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive adult patients with non-traumatic ICH admitted to three Italian academic hospitals (Salerno, Padova, Reggio Emilia) over a 2-year period. Early noncontrast CT (NCCT) features of the hematoma, including markers of HE, and 3-month outcome were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor outcome. Results A total of 682 patients were included in the study [mean age: 73 ± 14 years; 316 (46.3%) females]. Pontine and massive hemorrhage, intraventricular bleeding, baseline hematoma volume > 15 mL, blend sign, swirl sign, margin irregularity ≥ 4, density heterogeneity ≥ 3, hypodensity ≥ 1, island sign, satellite sign, and black hole sign were associated with a higher risk of mortality and disability. However, at multivariate analysis only initial hematoma volume (OR 29.71) proved to be an independent predictor of poor functional outcome at 3 months. Conclusion Simple hematoma volume measured on baseline CT best identifies patients with a worse outcome, while early NCCT markers of HE do not seem to add any clinically significant information.

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: 682 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