Reliability of ABC/2 volumetric estimation in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage for hematoma expansion prediction scores.

IF 5.8 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Stroke Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1177/23969873241293572
Satoru Tanioka, Orhun Utku Aydin, Adam Hilbert, Yotaro Kitano, Fujimaro Ishida, Kazuhiko Tsuda, Tomohiro Araki, Yoshinari Nakatsuka, Tetsushi Yago, Tomoyuki Kishimoto, Munenari Ikezawa, Hidenori Suzuki, Dietmar Frey
{"title":"Reliability of ABC/2 volumetric estimation in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage for hematoma expansion prediction scores.","authors":"Satoru Tanioka, Orhun Utku Aydin, Adam Hilbert, Yotaro Kitano, Fujimaro Ishida, Kazuhiko Tsuda, Tomohiro Araki, Yoshinari Nakatsuka, Tetsushi Yago, Tomoyuki Kishimoto, Munenari Ikezawa, Hidenori Suzuki, Dietmar Frey","doi":"10.1177/23969873241293572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prediction scores for hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), such as the 9-point and BRAIN scores, were developed predominantly using planimetry to measure hematoma volume. In this study, we aim to investigate whether the ABC/2 formula, which is known to overestimate hematoma volume, can be reliably used as a substitute for planimetry in these prediction scores.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 429 patients from four hospitals were retrospectively enrolled. CT scan and clinical data at admission and follow-up CT scan were collected. The 9-point and BRAIN scores were calculated using hematoma volume from ABC/2 and planimetry. Hematoma expansion was assessed using hematoma volume from planimetry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median hematoma volume measured by ABC/2 was 11.97 ml (interquartile range [IQR], 4.8-30.0), whereas the volume measured by planimetry was 11.70 ml (IQR, 4.9-26.6). The median measurement error between ABC/2 and planimetry was 0.30 ml (IQR, -0.72-2.87). ABC/2 overestimated hematoma volume in 244 patients (56.9%) compared to planimetry. In the 9-point score, the area under the curves (AUCs) for predicting hematoma expansion were 0.735 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.675-0.796) with ABC/2 and 0.732 (95% CI, 0.672-0.793) with planimetry. In the BRAIN score, the AUCs were 0.753 (95% CI, 0.693-0.813) with ABC/2 and 0.745 (95% CI, 0.688-0.803) with planimetry.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The 9-point and BRAIN scores using hematoma volume measured by ABC/2 and planimetry showed good performance in predicting hematoma expansion in ICH. ABC/2 volumetric estimation proved to be reliable for these scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":46821,"journal":{"name":"European Stroke Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Stroke Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873241293572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Prediction scores for hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), such as the 9-point and BRAIN scores, were developed predominantly using planimetry to measure hematoma volume. In this study, we aim to investigate whether the ABC/2 formula, which is known to overestimate hematoma volume, can be reliably used as a substitute for planimetry in these prediction scores.

Patients and methods: A total of 429 patients from four hospitals were retrospectively enrolled. CT scan and clinical data at admission and follow-up CT scan were collected. The 9-point and BRAIN scores were calculated using hematoma volume from ABC/2 and planimetry. Hematoma expansion was assessed using hematoma volume from planimetry.

Results: The median hematoma volume measured by ABC/2 was 11.97 ml (interquartile range [IQR], 4.8-30.0), whereas the volume measured by planimetry was 11.70 ml (IQR, 4.9-26.6). The median measurement error between ABC/2 and planimetry was 0.30 ml (IQR, -0.72-2.87). ABC/2 overestimated hematoma volume in 244 patients (56.9%) compared to planimetry. In the 9-point score, the area under the curves (AUCs) for predicting hematoma expansion were 0.735 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.675-0.796) with ABC/2 and 0.732 (95% CI, 0.672-0.793) with planimetry. In the BRAIN score, the AUCs were 0.753 (95% CI, 0.693-0.813) with ABC/2 and 0.745 (95% CI, 0.688-0.803) with planimetry.

Discussion and conclusion: The 9-point and BRAIN scores using hematoma volume measured by ABC/2 and planimetry showed good performance in predicting hematoma expansion in ICH. ABC/2 volumetric estimation proved to be reliable for these scores.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自发性脑内出血血肿扩大预测评分中 ABC/2 容积估算的可靠性。
简介:自发性脑内出血(ICH)血肿扩大的预测评分,如 9 分评分和 BRAIN 评分,主要是利用平面测量法测量血肿体积而制定的。在本研究中,我们旨在探讨已知会高估血肿体积的 ABC/2 公式能否可靠地替代平面测量法用于这些预测评分:患者和方法: 四家医院共 429 名患者接受了回顾性研究。收集了入院时的 CT 扫描和临床数据以及后续 CT 扫描数据。使用 ABC/2 和平面测量法计算血肿体积,得出 9 分和 BRAIN 评分。使用平面测量法的血肿体积评估血肿扩张情况:ABC/2测量的血肿体积中位数为11.97毫升(四分位距[IQR]为4.8-30.0),而平面测量法测量的血肿体积为11.70毫升(四分位距[IQR]为4.9-26.6)。ABC/2 和平面测量法的中位测量误差为 0.30 毫升(IQR,-0.72-2.87)。与平面测量法相比,ABC/2 高估了 244 名患者(56.9%)的血肿体积。在 9 分评分中,ABC/2 预测血肿扩大的曲线下面积 (AUC) 为 0.735(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.675-0.796),平面测量法为 0.732(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.672-0.793)。在 BRAIN 评分中,使用 ABC/2 的 AUC 为 0.753(95% CI,0.693-0.813),使用平面测量的 AUC 为 0.745(95% CI,0.688-0.803):使用 ABC/2 和平面测量法测量血肿体积得出的 9 分和 BRAIN 评分在预测 ICH 血肿扩大方面表现良好。事实证明,ABC/2 测量血肿体积对这些评分是可靠的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.60%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: Launched in 2016 the European Stroke Journal (ESJ) is the official journal of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO), a professional non-profit organization with over 1,400 individual members, and affiliations to numerous related national and international societies. ESJ covers clinical stroke research from all fields, including clinical trials, epidemiology, primary and secondary prevention, diagnosis, acute and post-acute management, guidelines, translation of experimental findings into clinical practice, rehabilitation, organisation of stroke care, and societal impact. It is open to authors from all relevant medical and health professions. Article types include review articles, original research, protocols, guidelines, editorials and letters to the Editor. Through ESJ, authors and researchers have gained a new platform for the rapid and professional publication of peer reviewed scientific material of the highest standards; publication in ESJ is highly competitive. The journal and its editorial team has developed excellent cooperation with sister organisations such as the World Stroke Organisation and the International Journal of Stroke, and the American Heart Organization/American Stroke Association and the journal Stroke. ESJ is fully peer-reviewed and is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Issues are published 4 times a year (March, June, September and December) and articles are published OnlineFirst prior to issue publication.
期刊最新文献
Incident dementia in ischaemic stroke patients with early cardiac complications: A propensity-score matched cohort study. Comparing the properties of traditional and novel approaches to the modified Rankin scale: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Impact of smoke-free legislation on stroke risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Initial blood pressure and adverse cardiac events following acute ischaemic stroke: An individual patient data pooled analysis from the VISTA database. Outcomes of different anesthesia techniques in nonagenarians treated with mechanical thrombectomy for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion: An inverse probability weighting analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1