4.4 Article

Application of the FOUR Score in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Risk Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 1565-1569

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.01.008

Keywords

Intracerebral hemorrhage; ICH Score; prognosis; FOUR Score; Glasgow Coma Scale

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score is a validated scale describing the essentials of a coma examination, including motor response, eye opening and eye movements, brainstem reflexes, and respiratory pattern. We incorporated the FOUR Score into the existing ICH Score and evaluated its accuracy of risk assessment in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients admitted to our institution from 2009 to 2012 with spontaneous ICH were reviewed. The ICH Score was calculated using patient age, hemorrhage location, hemorrhage volume, evidence of intraventricular extension, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The FOUR Score was then incorporated into the ICH Score as a substitute for the GCS (ICH Score(FS)). The ability of the 2 scores to predict mortality at 1 month was then compared. Results: In total, 274 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 73 years (interquartile range 60-82) and 138 (50.4%) were male. Overall mortality at 1 month was 28.8% (n = 79). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was .91 for the ICH Score and.89 for the ICH ScoreFS. For ICH Scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1-month mortality was 4.2%, 29.9%, 62.5%, 95.0%, and 100%. In the ICH ScoreFS model, mortality was 10.7%, 26.5%, 64.5%, 88.9%, and 100% for scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Conclusions: The ICH Score and the ICH ScoreFS predict 1-month mortality with comparable accuracy. As the FOUR Score provides additional clinical information regarding patient status, it may be a reasonable substitute for the GCS into the ICH Score.

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