4.7 Article

Prediction model for 3-year rupture risk of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in Japanese patients

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 1050-1059

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.24400

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo build a prediction model that estimates the 3-year rupture risk of unruptured saccular cerebral aneurysms. MethodsSurvival analysis was done using each aneurysm as the unit for analysis. Derivation data were from the Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Study (UCAS) in Japan. It consists of patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysms enrolled between 2000 and 2004 at neurosurgical departments at tertiary care hospitals in Japan. The model was presented as a scoring system, and aneurysms were classified into 4 risk grades by predicted 3-year rupture risk: I,<1%; II, 1 to 3%; III, 3 to 9%, and IV, >9%. The discrimination property and calibration plot of the model were evaluated with external validation data. They were a combination of 3 Japanese cohort studies: UCAS II, the Small Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Verification study, and the study at Jikei University School of Medicine. ResultsThe derivation data include 6,606 unruptured cerebral aneurysms in 5,651 patients. During the 11,482 aneurysm-year follow-up period, 107 ruptures were observed. The predictors chosen for the scoring system were patient age, sex, and hypertension, along with aneurysm size, location, and the presence of a daughter sac. The 3-year risk of rupture ranged from <1% to >15% depending on the individual characteristics of patients and aneurysms. External validation indicated good discrimination and calibration properties. InterpretationA simple scoring system that only needs easily available patient and aneurysmal information was constructed. This can be used in clinical decision making regarding management of unruptured cerebral aneurysms. Ann Neurol 2015;77:1050-1059

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