4.7 Article

Added value of non-contrast CT and CT perfusion markers for prediction of intracerebral hemorrhage expansion and outcome

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 690-698

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08987-x

关键词

Stroke; Cerebral hemorrhage; Perfusion; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combined analysis of non-contrast CT and CT perfusion markers improves the prediction of hematoma expansion and outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage.
Objectives To test the hypothesis that the combined analysis of non-contrast CT (NCCT) and CT perfusion (CTP) imaging markers improves prediction of hematoma expansion (HE) and outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods Retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with primary ICH undergoing NCCT and CTP within 6 h from onset. NCCT images were assessed for the presence of intrahematomal hypodensity and shape irregularity. Perihematomal cerebral blood volume and spot sign were assessed on CTP. The main outcomes of the analysis were HE (growth > 6 mL and/or > 33%) and poor functional prognosis (90 days modified Rankin Scale 3-6). Predictors of HE and outcome were explored with logistic regression. Results A total of 150 subjects were included (median age 68, 47.1% males) of whom 54 (36%) had HE and 52 (34.7%) had poor outcome. The number of imaging markers on baseline imaging was independently associated with HE (odds ratio 2.66, 95% confidence interval 1.70-4.17, p < 0.001) and outcome (odds ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.56, p = 0.027). Patients with the simultaneous presence of all the four markers had the highest risk of HE and unfavorable prognosis (mean predicted probability of 91% and 79% respectively). The combined-markers analysis outperformed the sensitivity of the single markers analyzed separately. In particular, the presence of at least one marker identified patients with HE and poor outcome with 91% and 87% sensitivity respectively. Conclusion NCCT and CTP markers provide additional yield in the prediction of HE and ICH outcome.

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

4.7
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