| Literature DB >> 30808383 |
Sangkil Lee1, Yong Oh Kim2, Ji Sun Baek3, Jeong-Am Ryu4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the role of optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) using brain computed tomography (CT) in predicting neurological outcomes of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH).Entities:
Keywords: Brain computed tomography; Optic nerve sheath diameter; Subarachnoid hemorrhage
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30808383 PMCID: PMC6390328 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-019-2360-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Study flow chart. SAH subarachnoid hemorrhage, CT computed tomography, GOS Glasgow Outcome Scale
Fig. 2Measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter (a) and eyeball transverse diameter (b) on the brain computed tomography scan
Baseline characteristics
| Favorable neurological outcome ( | Poor neurological outcome ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year)—mean ± SD | 57.7 ± 12.1 | 63.8 ± 16.0 | 0.034 |
| Gender, male—no. of patients (%) | 69 (37.1%) | 15 (40.5%) | 0.834 |
| BMI (kg/m2)—mean ± SD | 23.7 ± 3.8 | 22.8 ± 3.5 | 0.219 |
| Comorbidities—no. of patients (%) | |||
| Hypertension | 73 (39.2) | 15 (40.5) | 0.999 |
| Current smoker | 51 (27.4) | 9 (24.3) | 0.853 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 10 (5.4) | 7 (18.9) | 0.013 |
| Dyslipidemia | 10 (5.4) | 4 (10.8) | 0.382 |
| Previous TIA or stroke | 6 (3.2) | 5 (13.5) | 0.026 |
| Ischemic heart disease | 6 (3.2) | 4 (10.8) | 0.109 |
| Malignancy | 6 (3.2) | 2 (5.4) | 0.867 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 4 (2.2) | 3 (8.1) | 0.167 |
| The interval from symptom onset to initial CT | 4.5 ± 5.9 | 2.7 ± 3.4 | 0.015 |
| The interval from symptom onset to follow-up CT | 26.5 ± 13.4 | 24.5 ± 13.4 | 0.385 |
| The interval from initial CT to follow-up CT | 22.0 ± 12.1 | 21.7 ± 13.7 | 0.876 |
| Hunt and Hess classification—no. of patients (%) | < 0.001 | ||
| 2 | 98 (52.7) | 2 (5.4) | |
| 3 | 37 (19.9) | 3 (8.1) | |
| 4 | 29 (15.6) | 7 (18.9) | |
| 5 | 12.1 ± 3.9 | 6.4 ± 3.6 | |
| Modified Fisher classification—no. of patients (%) | < 0.001 | ||
| 1 | 29 (15.6) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 | 10 (5.4) | 0 (0) | |
| 3 | 101 (54.3) | 9 (24.3) | |
| 4 | 46 (24.7) | 28 (75.7) | |
| Pupil reactivity—no. of patients (%) | < 0.001 | ||
| Both intact pupil reflex | 166 (89.2) | 15 (40.5) | |
| One unreactive pupil | 4 (2.2) | 3 (8.1) | |
| Both unreactive pupil | 16 (8.6) | 19 (51.4) | |
| Aneurysm location—no. of patients (%) | 0.015 | ||
| Anterior communicating artery | 51 (24.4) | 11 (29.7) | |
| Anterior cerebral artery and distal | 13 (7.0) | 2 (5.4) | |
| Middle cerebral artery and distal | 51 (27.4) | 5 (13.5) | |
| Internal carotid artery | 11 (5.9) | 9 (24.3) | |
| Posterior communicating artery | 24 (12.9) | 3 (8.1) | |
| Posterior circulation | 22 (11.8) | 2 (5.4) | |
| No aneurysm | 10 (5.4) | 4 (10.8) | |
| Unknown | 4 (2.2) | 1 (2.7) | |
| Hydrocephalus—no. of patients (%) | 85 (45.7) | 26 (70.3) | 0.011 |
| Intraventricular hemorrhage—no. of patients (%) | 54 (29.0) | 28 (75.7) | < 0.001 |
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, TIA transient ischemic attack, CT computed tomography
Treatment characteristics
| Favorable neurological outcome ( | Poor neurological outcome ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Aneurysm treatment and timing—no. of patients (%) | < 0.001 | ||
| Early treatment within 72 h | 174 (93.5) | 24 (64.9) | |
| Early but non-aneurysm detection | 8 (4.3) | 0 (0) | |
| Late treatment | 1 (0.5) | 1 (2.7) | |
| No treatment | 3 (1.6) | 12 (32.4) | |
| Aneurysm management—no. of patients (%) | |||
| Coiling | 108 (58.1) | 16 (43.2) | 0.140 |
| Clipping | 66 (35.5) | 9 (24.3) | 0.262 |
| Endotracheal intubation during over 24 h | 38 (20.4%) | 33 (89.2%) | < 0.001 |
| External ventricular drainage—no. of patients (%) | 64 (34.4) | 16 (43.2) | 0.403 |
| Delayed cerebral ischemia—no. of patients (%) | 39 (21.0) | 7 (18.9) | 0.953 |
| Decompressive craniectomy—no. of patients (%) | 12 (6.5) | 8 (21.6) | 0.008 |
| Barbiturate coma therapy—no. of patients (%) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (8.1) | 0.042 |
The optic nerve sheath diameters and their modifications according to neurological outcomes
| Favorable neurological outcome ( | Poor neurological outcome ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ONSDaverage | 5.86 ± 0.56 | 6.45 ± 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| ONSDmax | 5.99 ± 0.57 | 6.62 ± 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| ETDaverage | 22.78 ± 1.18 | 22.64 ± 1.14 | 0.504 |
| ONSDindex | 5.15 ± 0.52 | 5.70 ± 0.60 | < 0.001 |
| Follow-up ONSDaverage | 5.77 ± 0.59 | 6.47 ± 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Follow-up ONSDmax | 5.99 ± 0.57 | 6.62 ± 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Follow-up ETDaverage | 22.89 ± 1.65 | 22.65 ± 1.13 | 0.295 |
| Follow-up ONSDindex | 5.06 ± 0.55 | 5.71 ± 0.53 | < 0.001 |
| ∆ONSDaverage | 0.01 ± 0.07 | −0.01 ± 0.06 | 0.139 |
ONSD optic nerve sheath diameter, ETD eyeball transverse diameter, ∆ONSD follow-up ONSDaverage minus initial ONSDaverage
Fig. 3Scatter plot of intracranial pressure (ICP, mmHg) and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD, mm). Follow-up ONSDaverage and follow-up ONSDindex were used in simple correlation analysis
Fig. 4a, b Receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting poor outcomes using Hunt and Hess grade, the optic nerve sheath diameters, and their modifications (a). Although there were no differences between the areas under the curve (AUCs) of H-H grade, follow-up ONSDaverage, and follow-up ONSDindex, the performance of a composite of H-H grade and follow-up ONSDindex was strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes compared with the use of either marker alone (all p < 0.006) (b). CI confidence interval, ONSD optic nerve sheath diameter, H-H grade Hunt and Hess grade