4.7 Review

Noncontrast CT markers of intracerebral hemorrhage expansion and poor outcome A meta-analysis

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 14, Pages 632-643

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010660

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To provide precise estimates of the association between noncontrast CT (NCCT) markers, hematoma expansion ( HE), and functional outcome in patients presenting with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed for English-written observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting data on NCCT markers of HE and outcome in spontaneous ICH including at least 50 subjects. The outcomes of interest were HE (hematoma growth >33%, >33% and/or >6 mL, >33% and/or >12.5 mL), poor functional outcome ( modified Rankin Scale 3-6 or 4-6) at discharge or at 90 days, and mortality. We pooled data in random- effects models and extracted cumulative odds ratio (OR) for each NCCT marker. Results We included 25 eligible studies (n = 10,650). The following markers were associated with increased risk of HE and poor outcome, respectively: black hole sign (OR = 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.42-9.64 and OR = 5.26, 95% CI = 1.75-15.76), swirl sign (OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 2.42-4.60 and OR = 3.70; 95% CI = 2.47-5.55), heterogeneous density (OR = 2.74; 95% CI = 1.71-4.39 and OR = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.78-4.39), blend sign (OR = 3.49; 95% CI = 2.20-5.55 and OR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.16-4.18), hypodensities (OR = 3.47; 95% CI = 2.18-5.50 and OR = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.28-3.78), irregular shape (OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.27-3.19 and OR = 3.43; 95% CI = 2.33-5.03), and island sign (OR = 7.87, 95% CI = 2.17-28.47 and OR = 6.05, 95% CI = 4.44-8.24). Conclusion Our results suggest that multiple NCCT ICH shape and density features, with different effect size, are important markers for HE and clinical outcome and may provide useful information for future randomized controlled trials.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available