Tanioka Satoru, Aydin Orhun Utku, Hilbert Adam, Kitano Yotaro, Ishida Fujimaro, Tsuda Kazuhiko, Araki Tomohiro, Nakatsuka Yoshinari, Yago Tetsushi, Kishimoto Tomoyuki, Ikezawa Munenari, Suzuki Hidenori, Frey Dietmar
Charité Lab for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Neurosurgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Eur Stroke J. 2024 Oct 30:23969873241293572. doi: 10.1177/23969873241293572.
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.
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.
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.
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.
自发性脑出血(ICH)血肿扩大的预测评分,如9分评分法和BRAIN评分法,主要是使用面积测量法来测量血肿体积而制定的。在本研究中,我们旨在调查已知会高估血肿体积的ABC/2公式是否能可靠地替代这些预测评分中的面积测量法。
回顾性纳入了来自四家医院的429例患者。收集了入院时的CT扫描及临床数据以及随访CT扫描数据。使用ABC/2公式计算的血肿体积和面积测量法计算的血肿体积来计算9分评分法和BRAIN评分法。使用面积测量法计算的血肿体积评估血肿扩大情况。
ABC/2公式测量的血肿体积中位数为11.97ml(四分位数间距[IQR],4.8 - 30.0),而面积测量法测量的体积为11.70ml(IQR,4.9 - 26.6)。ABC/2公式与面积测量法之间的测量误差中位数为0.30ml(IQR,-0.72 - 2.87)。与面积测量法相比,ABC/2公式高估了244例患者(56.9%)的血肿体积。在9分评分法中,使用ABC/2公式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),使用面积测量法时为0.732(95%CI,0.672 - 0.793)。在BRAIN评分法中,使用ABC/2公式时AUC为0.753(95%CI,0.693 - 0.813),使用面积测量法时为0.745(95%CI,0.688 - 0.803)。
使用ABC/2公式计算的血肿体积和面积测量法计算的血肿体积得出的9分评分法和BRAIN评分法在预测ICH血肿扩大方面表现良好。ABC/2体积估计法被证明对这些评分是可靠的。