OBJECTIVE: Intraventricular extension of intracerebral hemorrhage (IVH) is an independent predictor of poor outcome. IVH volume may be important in outcome prediction and management; however, it is difficult to measure routinely. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We reviewed the charts and computed tomographies of a cohort of consecutive patients with IVH. The cohort was divided into two groups: index and validation by random sampling. IVH and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume were measured manually in all patients. IVH was also graded using a simple classification system termed IVH score (IVHS). Clinical outcome was determined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge and in-hospital death. Poor outcome was defined as mRS 4-6. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were analyzed, 92 in the index group and 83 in the validation group. Exponential regression yielded the following formula for estimating IVH volume (mL): eIVHS/5 (R = .75, p < 0.001). The IVH estimation formula was then verified in the validation group (R = .8, p < 0.001). The following correlations with mRS were obtained: IVH volume R = .305; ICH volume R = .468; total volume [TV] R = .571 (p < 0.001 for all three correlations). Partial correlation of TV with mRS controlling for ICH volume yielded R = .3 for TV (p < 0.001). Logistic regression model comparing ICH and TV association with poor outcome yielded the following: ICH odds ratio = 5.2, 95% confidence interval 2.3-11.6, p < 0.001; TV odds ratio = 41.6, 95% confidence interval 9.6-180.6, p < 0.001. Substituting TV for ICH volume in the ICH score resulted in a significant increase in the specificity from 64% to 87% for predicting mortality. CONCLUSIONS: IVHS enables clinicians to rapidly estimate IVH volume. The addition of IVH to ICH volume increases its predictive power for poor outcome and mortality significantly. IVHS and TV may be used in clinical practice and clinical trials of patients with ICH.
OBJECTIVE: Intraventricular extension of intracerebral hemorrhage (IVH) is an independent predictor of poor outcome. IVH volume may be important in outcome prediction and management; however, it is difficult to measure routinely. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We reviewed the charts and computed tomographies of a cohort of consecutive patients with IVH. The cohort was divided into two groups: index and validation by random sampling. IVH and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume were measured manually in all patients. IVH was also graded using a simple classification system termed IVH score (IVHS). Clinical outcome was determined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge and in-hospital death. Poor outcome was defined as mRS 4-6. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were analyzed, 92 in the index group and 83 in the validation group. Exponential regression yielded the following formula for estimating IVH volume (mL): eIVHS/5 (R = .75, p < 0.001). The IVH estimation formula was then verified in the validation group (R = .8, p < 0.001). The following correlations with mRS were obtained: IVH volume R = .305; ICH volume R = .468; total volume [TV] R = .571 (p < 0.001 for all three correlations). Partial correlation of TV with mRS controlling for ICH volume yielded R = .3 for TV (p < 0.001). Logistic regression model comparing ICH and TV association with poor outcome yielded the following: ICH odds ratio = 5.2, 95% confidence interval 2.3-11.6, p < 0.001; TV odds ratio = 41.6, 95% confidence interval 9.6-180.6, p < 0.001. Substituting TV for ICH volume in the ICH score resulted in a significant increase in the specificity from 64% to 87% for predicting mortality. CONCLUSIONS: IVHS enables clinicians to rapidly estimate IVH volume. The addition of IVH to ICH volume increases its predictive power for poor outcome and mortality significantly. IVHS and TV may be used in clinical practice and clinical trials of patients with ICH.
Authors: Javier M Romero; Jeremy J Heit; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Joshua N Goldstein; Jingjing Lu; Elkan Halpern; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-01-22
Authors: Javier M Romero; H Bart Brouwers; Jingjing Lu; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Hillary Kelly; Jeremy Heit; Joshua Goldstein; Jonathan Rosand; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sarah E Nelson; W Andrew Mould; Dheeraj Gandhi; Richard E Thompson; Sarah Salter; Rachel Dlugash; Issam A Awad; Daniel F Hanley; Wendy Ziai Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Andreas H Kramer; Craig N Jenne; David A Zygun; Derek J Roberts; Michael D Hill; Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Stephanie Todd; Paul Kubes; John H Wong Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 6.200
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: Timothy C Morgan; Jesse Dawson; Danielle Spengler; Kennedy R Lees; Chanel Aldrich; Nishant K Mishra; Karen Lane; Terence J Quinn; Marie Diener-West; Christopher J Weir; Peter Higgins; Mark Rafferty; Katie Kinsley; Wendy Ziai; Issam Awad; Matthew R Walters; Daniel Hanley Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 7.914