C Weimar1, J Benemann, H-C Diener. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr 55, 45122 Essen, Germany. stroke.med@uni-essen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) accounts for the highest in-hospital mortality of all stroke types. Nevertheless, outcome is favourable in about 30% of patients. Only one model for the prediction of favourable outcome has been validated so far. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the Essen ICH score. METHODS: Inception cohorts were assessed on the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIH-SS) on admission and after follow up of 100 days. On the basis of previously validated clinical variables, a simple clinical score was developed to predict mortality and complete recovery (Barthel index after 100 days>or=95) in 340 patients with acute ICH. Subscores for age (<60=0; 60-69=1; 70-79=2; >or=80=3), NIH-SS level of consciousness (alert=0; drowsy=1; stuporose=2; comatose=3), and NIH-SS total score (0-5=0; 6-10=1; 11-15=2; 16-20=3; >20 or coma=4) were combined into a prognostic scale with <3 predicting complete recovery and >7 predicting death. The score was subsequently validated in an external cohort of 371 patients. RESULTS: The Essen ICH score showed a high prognostic accuracy for complete recovery and death in both the development and validation cohort. For prediction of complete recovery on the Barthel index after 100 days, the Essen ICH score was superior to the physicians' prognosis and to two previous prognostic scores developed for a slightly modified outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Essen ICH score provides an easy to use scale for outcome prediction following ICH. Its high positive predictive values for adverse outcomes and easy applicability render it useful for individual prognostic indications or the design of clinical studies. In contrast, physicians tended to predict outcome too pessimistically.
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) accounts for the highest in-hospital mortality of all stroke types. Nevertheless, outcome is favourable in about 30% of patients. Only one model for the prediction of favourable outcome has been validated so far. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the Essen ICH score. METHODS: Inception cohorts were assessed on the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIH-SS) on admission and after follow up of 100 days. On the basis of previously validated clinical variables, a simple clinical score was developed to predict mortality and complete recovery (Barthel index after 100 days>or=95) in 340 patients with acute ICH. Subscores for age (<60=0; 60-69=1; 70-79=2; >or=80=3), NIH-SS level of consciousness (alert=0; drowsy=1; stuporose=2; comatose=3), and NIH-SS total score (0-5=0; 6-10=1; 11-15=2; 16-20=3; >20 or coma=4) were combined into a prognostic scale with <3 predicting complete recovery and >7 predicting death. The score was subsequently validated in an external cohort of 371 patients. RESULTS: The Essen ICH score showed a high prognostic accuracy for complete recovery and death in both the development and validation cohort. For prediction of complete recovery on the Barthel index after 100 days, the Essen ICH score was superior to the physicians' prognosis and to two previous prognostic scores developed for a slightly modified outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Essen ICH score provides an easy to use scale for outcome prediction following ICH. Its high positive predictive values for adverse outcomes and easy applicability render it useful for individual prognostic indications or the design of clinical studies. In contrast, physicians tended to predict outcome too pessimistically.
Authors: K J Becker; A B Baxter; W A Cohen; H M Bybee; D L Tirschwell; D W Newell; H R Winn; W T Longstreth Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-03-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christian Weimar; Carsten Weber; Markus Wagner; Otto Busse; Roman Ludwig Haberl; Karl W Lauterbach; Hans Christoph Diener Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Dominique A Cadilhac; Joeseph Ibrahim; Dora C Pearce; Kathryn J Ogden; John McNeill; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Claire J Creutzfeldt; Kyra J Becker; Jonathan R Weinstein; Sandeep P Khot; Thomas O McPharlin; Thanh G Ton; W T Longstreth; David L Tirschwell Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Darin B Zahuranec; Brisa N Sánchez; Devin L Brown; Jeffrey J Wing; Melinda A Smith; Nelda M Garcia; William J Meurer; Lewis B Morgenstern; Lynda D Lisabeth Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2012-07-14 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Tiago Gregório; Sara Pipa; Pedro Cavaleiro; Gabriel Atanásio; Inês Albuquerque; Paulo Castro Chaves; Luís Azevedo Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Vivek P Gupta; Andrew L A Garton; Jonathan A Sisti; Brandon R Christophe; Aaron S Lord; Ariane K Lewis; Hans-Peter Frey; Jan Claassen; E Sander Connolly Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Brian Y Hwang; Geoffrey Appelboom; Christopher P Kellner; Amanda M Carpenter; Michael A Kellner; Paul R Gigante; E Sander Connolly Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: David Y Hwang; Cameron A Dell; Mary J Sparks; Tiffany D Watson; Carl D Langefeld; Mary E Comeau; Jonathan Rosand; Thomas W K Battey; Sebastian Koch; Mario L Perez; Michael L James; Jessica McFarlin; Jennifer L Osborne; Daniel Woo; Steven J Kittner; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 9.910