4.4 Article

Comparison of Hematoma Shape and Volume Estimates in Warfarin Versus Non-Warfarin-Related Intracerebral Hemorrhage

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 30-34

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-009-9296-7

关键词

Cerebral hemorrhage; Tomography; X-ray computed; Warfarin

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS059727, K23NS059774]
  2. Deane Institute for Integrative Study of Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hematoma volume is a major determinant of outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Accurate volume measurements are critical for predicting outcome and are thought to be more difficult in patients with oral anticoagulation-related ICH (OAT-ICH) due to a higher frequency of irregular shape. We examined hematoma shape and methods of volume assessment in patients with OAT-ICH. Methods We performed a case-control analysis of a prospectively identified cohort of consecutive patients with ICH. We retrospectively reviewed 50 consecutive patients with OAT-ICH and 50 location-matched non-OAT-ICH controls. Two independent readers analyzed CT scans for hematoma shape and volume using both ABC/2 and ABC/3 methods. Readers were blinded to all clinical variables including warfarin status. Gold-standard ICH volumes were determined using validated computer-assisted planimetry. Results Within this cohort, median INR in patients with OAT-ICH was 3.2. Initial ICH volume was not significantly different between non-OAT-ICH and OAT-ICH (35 +/- 38 cc vs. 53 +/- 56 cc, P = 0.4). ICH shape did not differ by anticoagulation status (round shape in 10% of OAT-ICH vs. 16% of non-OAT-ICH, P = 0.5). The ABC/3 calculation underestimated median volume by 9 (3-28) cc, while the ABC/2 calculation did so by 4 (0.8-12) cc. Conclusions Hematoma shape was not statistically significantly different in patients with OAT-ICH. Among bedside approaches, the standard ABC/2 method offers reasonable approximation of hematoma volume in OAT-ICH and non-OAT-ICH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据