Loris Poli1, Eleonora Leuci2, Paolo Costa3, Valeria De Giuli4, Filomena Caria4, Elisa Candeloro2, Alessandra Persico2, Massimo Gamba5, Mauro Magoni5, Giuseppe Micieli6, Anna Cavallini2, Alessandro Padovani4, Alessandro Pezzini4, Andrea Morotti2. 1. Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e Sperimentali, Clinica Neurologica, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy. loris.poli@gmail.com. 2. Stroke Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Nazionale C. Mondino, Pavia, Italy. 3. U.O. di Neurologia, Istituto Clinico Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy. 4. Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e Sperimentali, Clinica Neurologica, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 5. Stroke Unit, Neurologia Vascolare, Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST) Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy. 6. Dipartimento di Neurologia d'Urgenza, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Nazionale C. Mondino, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores have been proposed to predict hematoma expansion (HE) with noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT). We sought to validate these tools and compare their diagnostic performance. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed two cohorts of patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. HE expansion was defined as volume growth > 33% or > 6 mL. Two raters analyzed NCCT scans and calculated the scores, blinded to clinical and imaging data. The inter-rater reliability was assessed with the interclass correlation statistic. Discrimination and calibration were calculated with area under the curve (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistic, respectively. AUC comparison between different scores was explored with DeLong test. We also calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the dichotomized scores with cutoffs identified with the Youden's index. RESULTS: A total of 230 subjects were included, of whom 86 (37.4%) experienced HE. The observed AUC for HE were 0.696 for BAT, 0.700 for BRAIN, and 0.648 for HEP. None of the scores had a significantly superior AUC compared with the others (all p > 0.4). All the scores had good calibration (all p > 0.3) and good-to-excellent inter-rater reliability (interclass correlation > 0.8). BAT ≥ 3 showed the highest specificity (0.81), whereas BRAIN ≥ 6 had the highest sensitivity (0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores can predict HE with acceptable discrimination and require just a baseline NCCT scan. These tools may be used to stratify the risk of HE in clinical practice or randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores have been proposed to predict hematoma expansion (HE) with noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT). We sought to validate these tools and compare their diagnostic performance. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed two cohorts of patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. HE expansion was defined as volume growth > 33% or > 6 mL. Two raters analyzed NCCT scans and calculated the scores, blinded to clinical and imaging data. The inter-rater reliability was assessed with the interclass correlation statistic. Discrimination and calibration were calculated with area under the curve (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistic, respectively. AUC comparison between different scores was explored with DeLong test. We also calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the dichotomized scores with cutoffs identified with the Youden's index. RESULTS: A total of 230 subjects were included, of whom 86 (37.4%) experienced HE. The observed AUC for HE were 0.696 for BAT, 0.700 for BRAIN, and 0.648 for HEP. None of the scores had a significantly superior AUC compared with the others (all p > 0.4). All the scores had good calibration (all p > 0.3) and good-to-excellent inter-rater reliability (interclass correlation > 0.8). BAT ≥ 3 showed the highest specificity (0.81), whereas BRAIN ≥ 6 had the highest sensitivity (0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The BAT, BRAIN, and HEP scores can predict HE with acceptable discrimination and require just a baseline NCCT scan. These tools may be used to stratify the risk of HE in clinical practice or randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Andrew M Demchuk; Dar Dowlatshahi; David Rodriguez-Luna; Carlos A Molina; Yolanda Silva Blas; Imanuel Dzialowski; Adam Kobayashi; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Cheemun Lum; Gord Gubitz; Vasantha Padma; Jayanta Roy; Carlos S Kase; Jayme Kosior; Rohit Bhatia; Sarah Tymchuk; Suresh Subramaniam; David J Gladstone; Michael D Hill; Richard I Aviv Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
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: Andrea Morotti; H Bart Brouwers; Javier M Romero; Michael J Jessel; Anastasia Vashkevich; Kristin Schwab; Mohammad Rauf Afzal; Christy Cassarly; Steven M Greenberg; Renee Hebert Martin; Adnan I Qureshi; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Gregoire Boulouis; Andrea Morotti; Andreas Charidimou; Dar Dowlatshahi; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H Bart Brouwers; Yuchiao Chang; Guido J Falcone; Xuemei Cai; Alison M Ayres; Thomas W K Battey; Anastasia Vashkevich; Kristen A McNamara; Valerie Valant; Kristin Schwab; Susannah C Orzell; Linda M Bresette; Steven K Feske; Natalia S Rost; Javier M Romero; Anand Viswanathan; Sherry H-Y Chou; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Xia Wang; Hisatomi Arima; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Mark Woodward; Emma Heeley; Christian Stapf; Pablo M Lavados; Thompson Robinson; Yining Huang; Jiguang Wang; Candice Delcourt; Craig S Anderson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andrea Morotti; Gregoire Boulouis; Andreas Charidimou; Qi Li; Loris Poli; Paolo Costa; Valeria De Giuli; Eleonora Leuci; Federico Mazzacane; Giorgio Busto; Francesco Arba; Laura Brancaleoni; Sebastiano Giacomozzi; Luigi Simonetti; Michele Laudisi; Giuseppe Micieli; Anna Cavallini; Elisa Candeloro; Massimo Gamba; Mauro Magoni; Andrew D Warren; Christopher D Anderson; M Edip Gurol; Alessandro Biffi; Anand Viswanathan; Ilaria Casetta; Enrico Fainardi; Andrea Zini; Alessandro Pezzini; Alessandro Padovani; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Stefan Pszczolkowski; José P Manzano-Patrón; Zhe K Law; Kailash Krishnan; Azlinawati Ali; Philip M Bath; Nikola Sprigg; Rob A Dineen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315