Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany; Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, Johanniter-Kliniken Bonn, Germany.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2024 Aug;33(8):107804. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107804. Epub 2024 May 29.
Minimally invasive surgery combined with fibrinolytic therapy is a promising treatment option for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), but a meticulous patient selection is required, because not every patient benefits from it. The ICH score facilitates a reliable patient selection for fibrinolytic therapy except for ICH-4. This study evaluated whether an additional use of other prognostic tools can overcome this limitation.
A consecutive ICH patient cohort treated with fibrinolytic therapy between 2010 and 2020 was retrospectively analysed. The following prognostic tools were calculated: APACHE II, ICH-GS, ICH-FUNC, and ICH score. The discrimination power of every score was determined by ROC-analysis. Primary outcome parameters regarding the benefit of fibrinolytic therapy were the in-hospital mortality and a poor outcome defined as modified Rankin scale (mRS) > 4.
A total of 280 patients with a median age of 72 years were included. The mortality rates according to the ICH score were ICH-0 = 0 % (0/0), ICH-1 = 0 % (0/22), ICH-2 = 7.1 % (5/70), ICH-3 = 17.3 % (19/110), ICH-4 = 67.2 % (45/67), ICH-5 = 100 % (11/11). The APACHE II showed the best discrimination power for in-hospital mortality (AUC = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and for poor outcome (AUC = 0.79, p < 0.0001). In the subgroup with ICH-4, APACHE II with a cut-off of 24.5 showed a good discriminating power for in-hospital mortality (AUC = 0.83, p < 0.001) and for poor outcome (AUC = 0.87, p < 0.001).
An additional application of APACHE II score increases the discriminating power of ICH score 4 enabling a more precise appraisal of in-hospital mortality and of functional outcome, which could support the patient selection for fibrinolytic therapy.
微创外科联合溶栓治疗是治疗脑出血(ICH)患者的一种很有前途的治疗选择,但需要进行仔细的患者选择,因为并非每个患者都从中受益。ICH 评分可帮助对溶栓治疗进行可靠的患者选择,但 ICH-4 除外。本研究评估了额外使用其他预后工具是否可以克服这一局限性。
回顾性分析了 2010 年至 2020 年间接受溶栓治疗的连续 ICH 患者队列。计算了以下预后工具:APACHE II、ICH-GS、ICH-FUNC 和 ICH 评分。通过 ROC 分析确定每个评分的判别能力。关于溶栓治疗益处的主要预后参数是住院死亡率和改良 Rankin 量表(mRS)>4 定义的不良结局。
共纳入 280 名中位年龄为 72 岁的患者。根据 ICH 评分,死亡率分别为 ICH-0 = 0%(0/0)、ICH-1 = 0%(0/22)、ICH-2 = 7.1%(5/70)、ICH-3 = 17.3%(19/110)、ICH-4 = 67.2%(45/67)、ICH-5 = 100%(11/11)。APACHE II 对住院死亡率(AUC = 0.87,p<0.0001)和不良结局(AUC = 0.79,p<0.0001)的判别能力最好。在 ICH-4 亚组中,APACHE II 的截断值为 24.5 时,对住院死亡率(AUC = 0.83,p<0.001)和不良结局(AUC = 0.87,p<0.001)具有良好的判别能力。
APACHE II 评分的额外应用提高了 ICH 评分 4 的判别能力,使对住院死亡率和功能结局的评估更加精确,这可能有助于对溶栓治疗的患者选择。