Felix A Schmidt1, Eric M Liotta1, Shyam Prabhakaran1, Andrew M Naidech1, Matthew B Maas2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (F.A.S.), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Neurology, NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, and the Berlin Institute of Health Berlin, Germany; and Division of Stroke and Critical Care (E.M.L., S.P., A.M.N., M.B.M.), Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 2. From the Department of Neurology (F.A.S.), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Neurology, NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, and the Berlin Institute of Health Berlin, Germany; and Division of Stroke and Critical Care (E.M.L., S.P., A.M.N., M.B.M.), Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. mbmaas@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that the maximally treated intracerebral hemorrhage (max-ICH) score is superior to the ICH score for characterizing mortality and functional outcome prognosis in patients with ICH, particularly those who receive maximal treatment. METHODS: Patients presenting with spontaneous ICH were enrolled in a prospective observational study that collected demographic and clinical data. Mortality and functional outcomes were measured by using the modified Rankin Scale at 3 months. The ICH score and max-ICH score incorporate measures of symptom severity, age, hematoma volume, hematoma location, and intraventricular hemorrhage, with the max-ICH score also including a term for oral anticoagulation and having 16 score categories vs 11 for the ICH score. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the ICH score and max-ICH score for both mortality and poor functional outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale scores 4-6. RESULTS: We analyzed outcomes for 372 patients, including 71 patients (19%) in whom care limitation/withdrawal of life support was instituted. Both the ICH score and max-ICH score showed good prognostic performance for 3-month mortality and poor functional outcomes in the full group as well as the subgroup with maximal treatment (i.e., no care limitations; AUC range 0.80-0.86), with no significant difference in AUC between the scores for either endpoint in either group. CONCLUSIONS: External validation with direct comparison of the ICH score and max-ICH score shows that their prognostic performance is not meaningfully different. Alternatives to simple scores are likely needed to improve prognostic estimates for patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that the maximally treated intracerebral hemorrhage (max-ICH) score is superior to the ICH score for characterizing mortality and functional outcome prognosis in patients with ICH, particularly those who receive maximal treatment. METHODS: Patients presenting with spontaneous ICH were enrolled in a prospective observational study that collected demographic and clinical data. Mortality and functional outcomes were measured by using the modified Rankin Scale at 3 months. The ICH score and max-ICH score incorporate measures of symptom severity, age, hematoma volume, hematoma location, and intraventricular hemorrhage, with the max-ICH score also including a term for oral anticoagulation and having 16 score categories vs 11 for the ICH score. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the ICH score and max-ICH score for both mortality and poor functional outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale scores 4-6. RESULTS: We analyzed outcomes for 372 patients, including 71 patients (19%) in whom care limitation/withdrawal of life support was instituted. Both the ICH score and max-ICH score showed good prognostic performance for 3-month mortality and poor functional outcomes in the full group as well as the subgroup with maximal treatment (i.e., no care limitations; AUC range 0.80-0.86), with no significant difference in AUC between the scores for either endpoint in either group. CONCLUSIONS: External validation with direct comparison of the ICH score and max-ICH score shows that their prognostic performance is not meaningfully different. Alternatives to simple scores are likely needed to improve prognostic estimates for patient care decisions.
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: David Y Hwang; Stacy Y Chu; 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: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Anirudh Sreekrishnan; Audrey C Leasure; Fu-Dong Shi; David Y Hwang; Joseph L Schindler; Nils H Petersen; Emily J Gilmore; Hooman Kamel; Lauren H Sansing; David M Greer; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Adrian R Parry-Jones; Kamran A Abid; Mario Di Napoli; Craig J Smith; Andy Vail; Hiren C Patel; Andrew T King; Pippa J Tyrrell Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 7.914
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
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Bryan D Lizza; Sabra M Abbott; Eric M Liotta; Maged Gendy; John Eed; Andrew M Naidech; Kathryn J Reid; Phyllis C Zee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrea Loggini; Faten El Ammar; Issam A Awad; Christos Lazaridis; Christopher L Kramer; Christi Kordeck; Cedric McKoy; Fernando D Goldenberg; Ali Mansour Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.677
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Bryan D Lizza; Minjee Kim; Maged Gendy; Eric M Liotta; Kathryn J Reid; Phyllis C Zee; James W Griffith Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Bradley Weaver; Matthew Maas; Thomas P Bleck; Stephen VanHaerents; Stephan U Schuele Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Manuel Navarro-Oviedo; Roberto Muñoz-Arrondo; Beatriz Zandio; Juan Marta-Enguita; Anna Bonaterra-Pastra; Jose Antonio Rodríguez; Carmen Roncal; Jose A Páramo; Estefania Toledo; Joan Montaner; Mar Hernández-Guillamon; Josune Orbe Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 4.996