Jarno Satopää1, Satu Mustanoja2, Atte Meretoja2, Jukka Putaala2, Markku Kaste2, Mika Niemelä3, Turgut Tatlisumak2, Daniel Strbian4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Clinical Neurosciences, Neurosurgery, University of Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: jarno.satopaa@hus.fi. 2. Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital, Clinical Neurosciences, Neurology, University of Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Clinical Neurosciences, Neurosurgery, University of Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital, Clinical Neurosciences, Neurology, University of Helsinki, Finland; Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Neurology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the accuracy of 19 published prognostic scores to find the best tool for predicting mortality after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of consecutive patients with ICH (n=1013). After excluding patients with missing data (n=131), we analyzed 882 patients for 3-month (primary outcome), in-hospital, and 12-month mortality. We analyzed the strength of the individual score components and calculated the c-statistics, Youden index, sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value (NPV and PPV) for the scores. Finally, we included every score component in a multivariable model to analyze the maximum predictive value of the data elements combined. RESULTS: Observed in-hospital mortality was 23.6%, 3-month mortality was 31.0%, and 12-month mortality was 35.3%. For in-hospital mortality, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) performed equally good as the best score for the other outcomes, the ICH Functional Outcome Score (ICH-FOS). The c-statistics of the scores varied from 0.6293 (95% CI 0.587-0.672) to 0.8802 (0.855-0.906). With all variables from all the scores in a multivariable regression model, the c-statistics did not improve, being 0.89 (0.867-0.913). Using the Youden index cutoff for the ICH-FOS score, the sensitivity (73%), specificity (90%), PPV (76%), and NPV (88%) for the primary outcome were good. CONCLUSIONS: A plethora of scores exists to help clinicians estimate the prognosis of an acute ICH patient. The NIHSS can be used to quantify the risk of in-hospital death while the ICH-FOS performed best for the other outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the accuracy of 19 published prognostic scores to find the best tool for predicting mortality after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of consecutive patients with ICH (n=1013). After excluding patients with missing data (n=131), we analyzed 882 patients for 3-month (primary outcome), in-hospital, and 12-month mortality. We analyzed the strength of the individual score components and calculated the c-statistics, Youden index, sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value (NPV and PPV) for the scores. Finally, we included every score component in a multivariable model to analyze the maximum predictive value of the data elements combined. RESULTS: Observed in-hospital mortality was 23.6%, 3-month mortality was 31.0%, and 12-month mortality was 35.3%. For in-hospital mortality, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) performed equally good as the best score for the other outcomes, the ICH Functional Outcome Score (ICH-FOS). The c-statistics of the scores varied from 0.6293 (95% CI 0.587-0.672) to 0.8802 (0.855-0.906). With all variables from all the scores in a multivariable regression model, the c-statistics did not improve, being 0.89 (0.867-0.913). Using the Youden index cutoff for the ICH-FOS score, the sensitivity (73%), specificity (90%), PPV (76%), and NPV (88%) for the primary outcome were good. CONCLUSIONS: A plethora of scores exists to help clinicians estimate the prognosis of an acute ICHpatient. The NIHSS can be used to quantify the risk of in-hospital death while the ICH-FOS performed best for the other outcomes.
Authors: Pitchaiah Mandava; Santosh B Murthy; Neel Shah; Yves Samson; Marek Kimmel; Thomas A Kent Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Antonio Di Carlo; Maria Lamassa; Marco Franceschini; Francesca Bovis; Lorenzo Cecconi; Sanaz Pournajaf; Stefano Paravati; Annibale Biggeri; Domenico Inzitari; Salvatore Ferro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katja E Wartenberg; David Y Hwang; Karl Georg Haeusler; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Oliver W Sakowitz; Dominik Madžar; Hajo M Hamer; Alejandro A Rabinstein; David M Greer; J Claude Hemphill; Juergen Meixensberger; Panayiotis N Varelas Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Sonia Rodríguez-Fernández; Encarnación Castillo-Lorente; Francisco Guerrero-Lopez; David Rodríguez-Rubio; Eduardo Aguilar-Alonso; Jesús Lafuente-Baraza; Francisco Javier Gómez-Jiménez; Juan Mora-Ordóñez; Ricardo Rivera-López; María Dolores Arias-Verdú; Guillermo Quesada-García; Miguel Ángel Arráez-Sánchez; Ricardo Rivera-Fernández Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.692