David Roh1, Chung-Huan Sun2, J Michael Schmidt2, Edip Gurol3, Santosh Murthy4, Soojin Park2, Sachin Agarwal2, E Sander Connolly5, Jan Claassen2. 1. Department of Neurology, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington Ave, New York, NY, 10032, USA. dr2753@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington Ave, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Cornell University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) studies often use hematoma location rather than ICH etiologies when assessing outcome. Characterizing ICH using hematoma location is effective/reproducible, but may miss heterogeneity among these ICH locations, particularly lobar ICH where competing primary ICH etiologies are possible. We subsequently investigated baseline characteristics/outcome differences of spontaneous, primary ICH by their etiologies: cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and hypertension. METHODS: Primary ICH clinical/outcomes data were prospectively collected between 2009 and 2015. Modified Boston criteria were used to identify "probable/definite" and "possible" CAA-ICH, which were evaluated separately. SMASH-U criteria were used to identify hypertension ICH. Medication and systemic disease coagulopathy ICH were excluded. Baseline characteristics/outcomes among "probable/definite" CAA-ICH, "possible" CAA-ICH, and hypertension ICH were compared using logistic regression. Mortality models using ICH etiologies compared to hematoma location as predictor variables were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred and four hypertension ICHs, 55 "probable/definite" CAA-ICHs, and 46 "possible" CAA-ICHs were identified. Despite older age and larger ICH volumes, lower hospital mortality was seen in "probable/definite" CAA-ICH versus hypertension ICH (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.05-0.8; p = 0.02) after adjusting for female gender, components of ICH score, and EVD placement. There were no mortality differences between "possible" CAA-ICH and hypertension ICH. However, lower hospital mortality was seen in "probable/definite" versus "possible" CAA-ICH (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; p = 0.02). When using ICH etiology rather than hematoma location, hospital mortality models significantly improved (χ2: [df = 2, N = 305] = 6.2; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is required to confirm the mortality heterogeneity seen within our primary ICH cohort. Hematoma location may play a role for these findings, but the mortality differences seen among lobar ICH using CAA-ICH subtypes and a failure to identify mortality differences between "possible" CAA-ICH and hypertension ICH suggest the limitations of accounting for hematoma location alone.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE:Primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) studies often use hematoma location rather than ICH etiologies when assessing outcome. Characterizing ICH using hematoma location is effective/reproducible, but may miss heterogeneity among these ICH locations, particularly lobar ICH where competing primary ICH etiologies are possible. We subsequently investigated baseline characteristics/outcome differences of spontaneous, primary ICH by their etiologies: cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and hypertension. METHODS: Primary ICH clinical/outcomes data were prospectively collected between 2009 and 2015. Modified Boston criteria were used to identify "probable/definite" and "possible" CAA-ICH, which were evaluated separately. SMASH-U criteria were used to identify hypertension ICH. Medication and systemic disease coagulopathy ICH were excluded. Baseline characteristics/outcomes among "probable/definite" CAA-ICH, "possible" CAA-ICH, and hypertension ICH were compared using logistic regression. Mortality models using ICH etiologies compared to hematoma location as predictor variables were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred and four hypertension ICHs, 55 "probable/definite" CAA-ICHs, and 46 "possible" CAA-ICHs were identified. Despite older age and larger ICH volumes, lower hospital mortality was seen in "probable/definite" CAA-ICH versus hypertension ICH (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.05-0.8; p = 0.02) after adjusting for female gender, components of ICH score, and EVD placement. There were no mortality differences between "possible" CAA-ICH and hypertension ICH. However, lower hospital mortality was seen in "probable/definite" versus "possible" CAA-ICH (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; p = 0.02). When using ICH etiology rather than hematoma location, hospital mortality models significantly improved (χ2: [df = 2, N = 305] = 6.2; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is required to confirm the mortality heterogeneity seen within our primary ICH cohort. Hematoma location may play a role for these findings, but the mortality differences seen among lobar ICH using CAA-ICH subtypes and a failure to identify mortality differences between "possible" CAA-ICH and hypertension ICH suggest the limitations of accounting for hematoma location alone.
Authors: Anirudh Sreekrishnan; Jennifer L Dearborn; David M Greer; Fu-Dong Shi; David Y Hwang; Audrey C Leasure; Sonya E Zhou; Emily J Gilmore; Charles C Matouk; Nils H Petersen; Lauren H Sansing; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Daniel Woo; Laura R Sauerbeck; Brett M Kissela; Jane C Khoury; Jerzy P Szaflarski; James Gebel; Rakesh Shukla; Arthur M Pancioli; Edward C Jauch; Anil G Menon; Ranjan Deka; Janice A Carrozzella; Charles J Moomaw; Robert N Fontaine; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J Claude Hemphill; Steven M Greenberg; Craig S Anderson; Kyra Becker; Bernard R Bendok; Mary Cushman; Gordon L Fung; Joshua N Goldstein; R Loch Macdonald; Pamela H Mitchell; Phillip A Scott; Magdy H Selim; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Charlotte Jj van Asch; Merel Ja Luitse; Gabriël Je Rinkel; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Ale Algra; Catharina Jm Klijn Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Andreas Charidimou; Gregoire Boulouis; Kellen Haley; Eitan Auriel; Ellis S van Etten; Panagiotis Fotiadis; Yael Reijmer; Alison Ayres; Anastasia Vashkevich; Zora Y Dipucchio; Kristin M Schwab; Sergi Martinez-Ramirez; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg; M Edip Gurol Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Atte Meretoja; Daniel Strbian; Jukka Putaala; Sami Curtze; Elena Haapaniemi; Satu Mustanoja; Tiina Sairanen; Jarno Satopää; Heli Silvennoinen; Mika Niemelä; Markku Kaste; Turgut Tatlisumak Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Candice Delcourt; Shoichiro Sato; Shihong Zhang; Else Charlotte Sandset; Danni Zheng; Xiaoying Chen; Maree L Hackett; Hisatomi Arima; Jun Hata; Emma Heeley; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Thompson Robinson; Leo Davies; Pablo M Lavados; Richard I Lindley; Christian Stapf; John Chalmers; Craig S Anderson Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Li Liu; Matthew Fuller; Tyler P Behymer; Yisi Ng; Thomas Christianson; Shreyansh Shah; Nicolas Kon Kam King; Daniel Woo; Michael L James Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Stefan P Haider; Adnan I Qureshi; Abhi Jain; Hishan Tharmaseelan; Elisa R Berson; Tal Zeevi; Shahram Majidi; Christopher G Filippi; Simon Iseke; Moritz Gross; Julian N Acosta; Ajay Malhotra; Jennifer A Kim; Lauren H Sansing; Guido J Falcone; Kevin N Sheth; Seyedmehdi Payabvash Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 6.288