Evidence Hub

Association of Anatomical Site and Clinical Outcome in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients with or without Intraventricular Extension

Somannavar VG, Williams GC

The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 2020

56 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study intend to determine the association of anatomical site and clinical outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage patients with or without intraventricular extension.

METHODS: The present 1-year cross-sectional study included 56 patients presenting with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with or without intraventricular extension. Relevant data were collected through a detailed interview with either the patient or the attender. Clinical examination was performed with the help of a predesigned and pretested proforma. Anatomical site of intracerebral hemorrhage and volume of ventricular bleed was estimated by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imagining scans. Clinical outcome was assessed based on modified Rankin scale score and Glasgow outcome scale. Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test were employed in the analysis.

RESULTS: The most common clinical presentations were neuronal deficits, speech disorder, and cranial nerve dysfunction. Hypertension was the most important risk factor observed among the patients. Age, gender, habits, severity of hypertension, duration of hypertension, and site of bleed (P > 0.05) were not significantly associated with outcome. However, clinical features including neuronal deficits (P = 0.01), cranial nerve palsy (P = 0.0002), altered sensorium (P = 0.004), vomiting (P = 0.0006), volume or quantum of bleed (P < 0.04), and IVE of ICH (P = 0.026; significantly affected the outcome.

CONCLUSION: The present study revealed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 56 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