| Literature DB >> 36188369 |
Heng Wei1, Wenrui Han1, Qi Tian1, Kun Yao2, Peibang He1, Jianfeng Wang1, Yujia Guo1, Qianxue Chen1, Mingchang Li1.
Abstract
Background: Predicting rupture risk is important for aneurysm management. This research aimed to develop and validate a nomogram model to forecast the rupture risk of posterior communicating artery (PcomA) aneurysms.Entities:
Keywords: LASSO regression; dynamic nomogram; external validation; posterior communicating artery aneurysms; rupture risk
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188369 PMCID: PMC9515426 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.985573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Clinical, morphological, and hemodynamic characteristics in training cohort and external validation cohort.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.55 ± 9.49 | 60.36 ± 8.28 | 0.090 |
| Gender (female) | 253 (76%) | 78 (81%) | 0.335 |
| Hypertension | 135 (41%) | 37 (39%) | 0.725 |
| Diabetes | 21 (6%) | 2 (2%) | 0.127 |
| hyperlipidemia | 31 (9%) | 8 (8%) | 0.843 |
| CHD | 18 (5%) | 6 (6%) | 0.801 |
| Smoking | 43 (13%) | 13 (14%) | 0.865 |
| Drinking | 23 (7%) | 10 (10%) | 0.278 |
| Irregular shape | 110 (33%) | 33 (34%) | 0.807 |
| D (mm) | 5.59 (4.26, 7.16) | 6.03 (4.70, 7.26) | 0.257 |
| W (mm) | 3.82 (3.14, 5.02) | 4.12 (3.18, 4.72) | 0.699 |
| N (mm) | 3.10 (2.52, 3.66) | 3.15 (2.53, 3.73) | 0.756 |
| H (mm) | 4.80 (3.57, 6.03) | 4.72 (3.88, 5.82) | 0.791 |
| AR | 1.85 ± 0.48 | 1.90 ± 0.33 | 0.348 |
| BNF | 1.25 (1.07, 1.51) | 1.25(1.10, 1.37) | 0.361 |
| H/W | 1.17 (1.04, 1.34) | 1.24(1.09, 1.35) | 0.076 |
| OSI | 0.031 (0.021, 0.041) | 0.033(0.020, 0.047) | 0.177 |
| LSA | 0.12 (0.08, 0.14) | 0.12(0.08,0.15) | 0.363 |
| WSS (Pa) | 3.14 (2.22, 4.10) | 2.93(2.16, 3.47) | 0.119 |
| NWSS | 0.67(0.59,0.74) | 0.68(0.62,0.75) | 0.448 |
| WSSG | 443.68(286.09, 624.94) | 414.16(275.87, 593.22) | 0.362 |
| IAP (Pa) | 404.54(319.30, 527.61) | 384.85(305.05, 486.79) | 0.142 |
| Ruptured | 225(68%) | 75(78%) | 0.275 |
CHD, coronary heart disease; D, maximum diameter; W, maximum width; N, neck width; H, height; AR, aspect ratio; BNF, bottleneck factor; H/W, height-to-width ratio; OSI, oscillatory shear index; LSA, low shear area; WSS, wall shear stress; NWSS, normalized wall shear stress; WSSG, wall shear stress gradient; IAP, intra-aneurysmal pressure.
The clinical, morphological, and hemodynamic characteristics between ruptured and unruptured groups in the training cohort.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.21 ± 9.15 | 59.25 ± 10.18 | 0.350 |
| Gender (female) | 173 (77%) | 80 (75%) | 0.681 |
| Hypertension | 103 (46%) | 32 (30%) | 0.006 |
| Diabetes | 13 (6%) | 8 (7%) | 0.630 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 19 (8%) | 12 (11%) | 0.425 |
| CHD | 13 (6%) | 5 (5%) | 0.799 |
| Smoking | 32 (14%) | 11 (10%) | 0.383 |
| Drinking | 12 (5%) | 11 (10%) | 0.109 |
| Irregular shape | 88 (39%) | 22 (21%) | 0.001 |
| D (mm) | 6.11 (4.81, 7.29) | 4.72 (3.44, 5.92) | <0.001 |
| W (mm) | 3.92 (3.24, 5.08) | 3.52 (2.89, 4.89) | 0.039 |
| N (mm) | 3.09 (2.52, 3.59) | 3.13 (2.53, 3.86) | 0.498 |
| H (mm) | 5.03 (3.95, 6.13) | 4.32 (3.16, 5.32) | 0.001 |
| AR | 1.99 ± 0.44 | 1.55 ± 0.42 | <0.001 |
| BNF | 1.29 (1.11, 1.55) | 1.17 (1.02, 1.33) | <0.001 |
| H/W | 1.19 (1.06, 1.37) | 1.12 (1.00, 1.30) | 0.001 |
| OSI | 0.03 (0.02, 0.04) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.03) | <0.001 |
| LSA | 0.12 (0.08, 0.14) | 0.11 (0.08, 0.14) | 0.248 |
| WSS (Pa) | 2.94 (1.98, 3.45) | 4.03 (3.23, 4.75) | <0.001 |
| NWSS | 0.67 (0.62, 0.73) | 0.67 (0.59, 0.77) | 0.598 |
| WSSG | 458.46 (323.29, 626.76) | 432.61(270.11, 621.13) | 0.263 |
| IAP (Pa) | 419.33 (325.99, 529.17) | 389.27 (310.53, 513.37) | 0.246 |
CHD, coronary heart disease; D, maximum diameter; W, maximum width; N, neck width; H, height; AR, aspect ratio; BNF, bottleneck factor; H/W, height-to-width ratio; OSI, oscillatory shear index; LSA, low shear area; WSS, wall shear stress; NWSS, normalized wall shear stress; WSSG, wall shear stress gradient; IAP, intra-aneurysmal pressure.
Figure 1Selection of optimal variables by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) analysis. (A) The selection of optimal parameters (lambda) by 10-fold cross-validation. (B) The vertical line was plotted at the optimal λ of 0.058, with log (λ) = −2.834. Four factors with non-zero coefficients were finally selected.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis for the selected variables by LASSO.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | 2.631 (1.400–4.944) | 0.003 |
| AR | 9.937 (4.726–20.892) | <0.001 |
| OSI ( ×100) | 1.449 (1.167–1.799) | 0.001 |
| WSS | 0.484 (0.374–0.626) | <0.001 |
AR, aspect ratio; OSI, oscillatory shear index; WSS, wall shear stress.
Figure 2The nomogram model predicts the rupture risk of PcomA aneurysms, based on OSI, AR, hypertension, and WSS. OSI, oscillatory shear index; AR, aspect ratio; WSS, wall shear stress.
Figure 3ROC and AUC analysis for nomogram validation. (A) Internal validation. (B) External validation. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; AR, aspect ratio; OSI, oscillatory shear index; WSS, wall shear stress.
Figure 4DCA and CIC curves of nomogram in the training cohort. (A) DCA curve. (B) CIC curve. DCA, decision curve analysis; CIC, clinical impact curve.
Figure 5Calibration curve for nomogram validation. (A) Internal validation. (B) External validation.