Validation of the newly conceived Surgical Swedish ICH grading scale for surgically treated patients with intracerebral hemorrhage: patient series.
AMI = acute myocardial infarction
AUC = area under the curve
CT = computerized tomography
DM2 = diabetes mellitus type 2
GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale
ICH = intracerebral hemorrhage
MI = myocardial infarction
ROC = receiver operator characteristic
SwICH = Swedish ICH
clinical grading scale
external validation
intracerebral hemorrhage
outcome
stroke
Journal
Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons
ISSN: 2694-1902
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg Case Lessons
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227275606676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jan 2021
04 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
07
10
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
entrez:
20
7
2022
pubmed:
4
1
2021
medline:
4
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The authors sought to externally validate a newly developed clinical grading scale, the Surgical Swedish ICH (SwICH) score. Patients surgically treated for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from 2009 to 2019 in a single center in Denmark were identified. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records and neuroimaging. Surgical SwICH and ICH scores were calculated for each patient, and the validity of the Surgical SwICH was assessed and compared. The 126 patients included had an overall 30-day mortality rate of 23%. All patients with a Surgical SwICH score of 0 survived past one year. No patient scored the maximum Surgical SwICH score of 6. The 30-day mortality rates for Surgical SwICH scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0%, 20%, 53%, and 25%, respectively (p <0.0001 for trend). Mortality rates for ICH scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0%, 11%, 33%, and 76%, respectively (p <0.001 for trend). Receiver operator characteristics showed an area under curve of 0.78 for the Surgical SwICH score and 0.80 for the ICH score (p = 0.21 difference). The Surgical SwICH score was a good predictor of 30-day mortality in patients surgically treated for spontaneous supratentorial ICH. However, the Surgical SwICH score did not outperform the previously established ICH score in predicting 30-day mortality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The authors sought to externally validate a newly developed clinical grading scale, the Surgical Swedish ICH (SwICH) score. Patients surgically treated for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from 2009 to 2019 in a single center in Denmark were identified. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records and neuroimaging. Surgical SwICH and ICH scores were calculated for each patient, and the validity of the Surgical SwICH was assessed and compared.
OBSERVATIONS
METHODS
The 126 patients included had an overall 30-day mortality rate of 23%. All patients with a Surgical SwICH score of 0 survived past one year. No patient scored the maximum Surgical SwICH score of 6. The 30-day mortality rates for Surgical SwICH scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0%, 20%, 53%, and 25%, respectively (p <0.0001 for trend). Mortality rates for ICH scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0%, 11%, 33%, and 76%, respectively (p <0.001 for trend). Receiver operator characteristics showed an area under curve of 0.78 for the Surgical SwICH score and 0.80 for the ICH score (p = 0.21 difference).
LESSONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Surgical SwICH score was a good predictor of 30-day mortality in patients surgically treated for spontaneous supratentorial ICH. However, the Surgical SwICH score did not outperform the previously established ICH score in predicting 30-day mortality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35854686
doi: 10.3171/CASE2044
pii: CASE2044
pmc: PMC9236170
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
CASE2044Informations de copyright
© 2021 The authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
Références
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):397-408
pubmed: 23726393
J Neurosurg. 2019 Aug 23;:1-8
pubmed: 31443074
Lancet. 2009 May 9;373(9675):1632-44
pubmed: 19427958
Neurocrit Care. 2019 Apr;30(2):449-466
pubmed: 30426449
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 24;8(4):e62286
pubmed: 23638025
Int J Stroke. 2015 Oct;10(7):1101-7
pubmed: 26044442
Neurol Res. 1984 Sep;6(3):145-51
pubmed: 6151139
Stat Med. 1985 Jan-Mar;4(1):87-90
pubmed: 3992076
Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2470-6
pubmed: 26243227
Surg Neurol. 2006 Nov;66(5):492-501; discussion 501-2
pubmed: 17084196
Stroke. 2012 Jun;43(6):1496-504
pubmed: 22511006
Stroke. 2019 May;50(5):1257-1259
pubmed: 30890109
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Nov;174:36-39
pubmed: 30205274
J Stroke. 2017 Jan;19(1):3-10
pubmed: 28178408
Lancet Neurol. 2010 Feb;9(2):167-76
pubmed: 20056489
J Neurol Sci. 2019 Mar 15;398:54-66
pubmed: 30682522
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Sep;5(9):1315-6
pubmed: 20736804
Lancet. 1992 Mar 14;339(8794):656-8
pubmed: 1347346
Neurosurgery. 2002 Aug;51(2):524-5; author reply 525
pubmed: 12197496
Cleve Clin J Med. 2005 Apr;72(4):341-4
pubmed: 15850245
Neurology. 2016 Aug 30;87(9):870-8
pubmed: 27473136
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Apr;8(4):355-69
pubmed: 19233729
Lancet. 2005 Jan 29-Feb 4;365(9457):387-97
pubmed: 15680453
Stroke. 2000 Oct;31(10):2511-6
pubmed: 11022087
Stroke. 1989 Jul;20(7):864-70
pubmed: 2749846
Stroke. 2019 May;50(5):1108-1115
pubmed: 30932784
BMC Neurol. 2018 Sep 03;18(1):136
pubmed: 30176811
J Neurol Sci. 2017 Aug 15;379:103-108
pubmed: 28716217
Stroke. 2001 Apr;32(4):891-7
pubmed: 11283388
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 08;(4):CD000200
pubmed: 18843607