Andrew N Hall1, Bradley Weaver2, Eric Liotta2, Matthew B Maas2, Roland Faigle3, Daniel K Mroczek4,5, Andrew M Naidech2. 1. Department of Psychology, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. andrewhall@u.northwestern.edu. 2. Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. 5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Demonstrating a benefit of acute treatment to patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) requires identifying which patients have a potentially modifiable outcome, where treatment could favorably shift a patient's expected outcome. A decision rule for which patients have a modifiable outcome could improve the targeting of treatments. We sought to determine which patients with ICH have a modifiable outcome. METHODS: Patients with ICH were prospectively identified at two institutions. Data on hematoma volumes, medication histories, and other variables of interest were collected. ICH outcomes were evaluated using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), assessed at 14 days and 3 months after ICH, with "good outcome" defined as 0-3 (independence or better) and "poor outcome" defined as 4-6 (dependence or worse). Supervised machine learning models identified the best predictors of good versus poor outcomes at Institution 1. Models were validated using repeated fivefold cross-validation as well as testing on the entirely independent sample at Institution 2. Model fit was assessed with area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Model performance at Institution 1 was strong for both 14-day (AUC of 0.79 [0.77, 0.81] for decision tree, 0.85 [0.84, 0.87] for random forest) and 3 month (AUC of 0.75 [0.73, 0.77] for decision tree, 0.82 [0.80, 0.84] for random forest) outcomes. Independent predictors of functional outcome selected by the algorithms as important included hematoma volume at hospital admission, hematoma expansion, intraventricular hemorrhage, overall ICH Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Hematoma expansion was the only potentially modifiable independent predictor of outcome and was compatible with "good" or "poor" outcome in a subset of patients with low hematoma volumes, good Glasgow Coma scale and premorbid modified Rankin Scale scores. Models trained on harmonized data also predicted patient outcomes well at Institution 2 using decision tree (AUC 0.69 [0.63, 0.75]) and random forests (AUC 0.78 [0.72, 0.84]). CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes are predictable to a high level in patients with ICH, and hematoma expansion is the sole-modifiable predictor of these outcomes across two outcome types and modeling approaches. According to decision tree analyses predicting outcome at 3 months, patients with a high Glasgow Coma Scale score, less than 44.5 mL hematoma volume at admission, and relatively low premorbid modified Rankin Score in particular have a modifiable outcome and appear to be candidates for future interventions to improve outcomes after ICH.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Demonstrating a benefit of acute treatment to patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) requires identifying which patients have a potentially modifiable outcome, where treatment could favorably shift a patient's expected outcome. A decision rule for which patients have a modifiable outcome could improve the targeting of treatments. We sought to determine which patients with ICH have a modifiable outcome. METHODS: Patients with ICH were prospectively identified at two institutions. Data on hematoma volumes, medication histories, and other variables of interest were collected. ICH outcomes were evaluated using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), assessed at 14 days and 3 months after ICH, with "good outcome" defined as 0-3 (independence or better) and "poor outcome" defined as 4-6 (dependence or worse). Supervised machine learning models identified the best predictors of good versus poor outcomes at Institution 1. Models were validated using repeated fivefold cross-validation as well as testing on the entirely independent sample at Institution 2. Model fit was assessed with area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Model performance at Institution 1 was strong for both 14-day (AUC of 0.79 [0.77, 0.81] for decision tree, 0.85 [0.84, 0.87] for random forest) and 3 month (AUC of 0.75 [0.73, 0.77] for decision tree, 0.82 [0.80, 0.84] for random forest) outcomes. Independent predictors of functional outcome selected by the algorithms as important included hematoma volume at hospital admission, hematoma expansion, intraventricular hemorrhage, overall ICH Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Hematoma expansion was the only potentially modifiable independent predictor of outcome and was compatible with "good" or "poor" outcome in a subset of patients with low hematoma volumes, good Glasgow Coma scale and premorbid modified Rankin Scale scores. Models trained on harmonized data also predicted patient outcomes well at Institution 2 using decision tree (AUC 0.69 [0.63, 0.75]) and random forests (AUC 0.78 [0.72, 0.84]). CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes are predictable to a high level in patients with ICH, and hematoma expansion is the sole-modifiable predictor of these outcomes across two outcome types and modeling approaches. According to decision tree analyses predicting outcome at 3 months, patients with a high Glasgow Coma Scale score, less than 44.5 mL hematoma volume at admission, and relatively low premorbid modified Rankin Score in particular have a modifiable outcome and appear to be candidates for future interventions to improve outcomes after ICH.
Authors: Daniel F Hanley; Karen Lane; Nichol McBee; Wendy Ziai; Stanley Tuhrim; Kennedy R Lees; Jesse Dawson; Dheeraj Gandhi; Natalie Ullman; W Andrew Mould; Steven W Mayo; A David Mendelow; Barbara Gregson; Kenneth Butcher; Paul Vespa; David W Wright; Carlos S Kase; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Penelope M Keyl; Marie Diener-West; John Muschelli; Joshua F Betz; Carol B Thompson; Elizabeth A Sugar; Gayane Yenokyan; Scott Janis; Sayona John; Sagi Harnof; George A Lopez; E Francois Aldrich; Mark R Harrigan; Safdar Ansari; Jack Jallo; Jean-Louis Caron; David LeDoux; Opeolu Adeoye; Mario Zuccarello; Harold P Adams; Michael Rosenblum; Richard E Thompson; Issam A Awad Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maged D Fam; Daniel Hanley; Agnieszka Stadnik; Hussein A Zeineddine; Romuald Girard; Michael Jesselson; Ying Cao; Lynn Money; Nichol McBee; Amanda J Bistran-Hall; W Andrew Mould; Karen Lane; Paul J Camarata; Mario Zuccarello; Issam A Awad Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Michael N Diringer; Brett E Skolnick; Stephan A Mayer; Thorsten Steiner; Stephen M Davis; Nikolai C Brun; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Chinh Quoc Luong; Anh Dat Nguyen; Chi Van Nguyen; Ton Duy Mai; Tuan Anh Nguyen; Son Ngoc Do; Phuong Viet Dao; Hanh Thi My Pham; Dung Thi Pham; Hung Manh Ngo; Quan Huu Nguyen; Dat Tuan Nguyen; Thong Huu Tran; Ky Van Le; Nam Trong Do; Ngoc Duc Ngo; Vinh Duc Nguyen; Hung Duc Ngo; Hai Bui Hoang; Ha Viet Vu; Lan Tuong Vu; Binh Thanh Ngo; Bai Xuan Nguyen; Dai Quoc Khuong; Dung Tien Nguyen; Trung Xuan Vuong; Thu Hong Be; Thomas Gaberel; Lieu Van Nguyen Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2019-08-13
Authors: Jens Witsch; David J Roh; Radhika Avadhani; Alexander E Merkler; Hooman Kamel; Issam Awad; Daniel F Hanley; Wendy C Ziai; Santosh B Murthy Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Gianluca Trevisi; Valerio Maria Caccavella; Alba Scerrati; Francesco Signorelli; Giuseppe Giovanni Salamone; Klizia Orsini; Christian Fasciani; Sonia D'Arrigo; Anna Maria Auricchio; Ginevra D'Onofrio; Francesco Salomi; Alessio Albanese; Pasquale De Bonis; Annunziato Mangiola; Carmelo Lucio Sturiale Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 2.800