4.4 Article

Impact of Perihemorrhagic Edema on Short-Term Outcome After Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 404-412

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-015-0185-y

Keywords

Intracerebral hemorrhage; Computed tomography; Perihemorrhagic edema; Outcome; Clinical neurology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating disease with ICH volume being the main predictor of poor outcome. The prognostic role of perihemorrhagic edema (PHE) is still unclear; however, available data are mainly derived from analyses during the first days after symptom onset. As PHE growth may continue up to 14 days after ICH, we evaluated PHE over a longer period of time and investigated its impact on short-term clinical outcome. In this monocentric retrospective cohort study, patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH were identified from our institutional data base. Different time points of CT scans were merged to time clusters for better comparison (day 1, 2-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12). Absolute volumes of ICH and PHE were obtained using a validated semiautomatic volumetric algorithm. Clinical outcome at discharge was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (0-3 = favorable, 4-6 = poor). 220 patients (83 with favorable, 137 with poor outcome) were included in the final analysis. Mean ICH volume on admission was 22.8 [standard deviation (SD) 24.6] cm(3). Mean absolute PHE volume on admission was 22.5 (SD 20.8) cm(3) and increased to a mean peak volume of 38.1 (SD 31.4) cm(3) during 6.7 (SD 4.1) days on average. Besides GCS on admission, functional status before ICH, peak hematoma volume, lobar localization and fever burden, and high peak PHE volume predicted poor outcome at discharge [OR 0.977 (95 % CI 0.957-0.998)] in the multivariable analysis. PHE may have a negative impact on short-term functional outcome after ICH and therefore represent a possible treatment target.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available