Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

IVH Score, 2009

910

Published on

sistem skoring IVH, mengestimasi volume IVH, prediktor untuk poor outcome & mortalitas, cut off point untuk eksekusi tratment agresif

sistem skoring IVH, mengestimasi volume IVH, prediktor untuk poor outcome & mortalitas, cut off point untuk eksekusi tratment agresif

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
910
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • (“A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted to our stroke center….”)Random sampling vs Random allocation
  • All CT scans were done using identical technique (slice thickness 5 mm, gantry tilt −16)
  • - partially based on scores previously developed for grading IVHwe chose to develop a new score because none of the previous scores were intended to estimate IVH volume(previous scoring-nyapakecaraapa??)- The a priori assumptions underlying our grading system were as follows: 1) the third and fourth ventricles contribute much less to the ventricular volume than the lateral ventricles and 2) in the presence of hydrocephalus, the ventricular volume increases through expansion.
  • NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; TT, Student’s t test; CS, chi-square test; EVD, extraventricular drainage; IVT, intraventriculartPA; SD, standard deviation.Baseline characteristics of the index and validation groups.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692316/
  • Intraventricular extension of intracerebral hemorrhage (IVH) grading. LV, left ventricle; RV, right ventricle; III, third ventricle score;H, hydrocephalus; IVHS, IVH score.
  • Curve fitting of intraventricular extension of intracerebral hemorrhage (IVH) score (IVHS) to IVH volume in the index cohort (A) and calculated to measured IVH volume in the validation cohort (B). IVHS-IVH Score. LV, left ventricle; RV, right ventricle; III, third ventricle score.
  • A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behaviour.  a statement that alters actions and therefore comes true.
  • Transcript

    • 1. The IVH ScoreA novel tool for estimatingintraventricular hemorrhage volumeClinical and research implicationsHallevi H, Dar NS, Barreto AD, Morales MM, Martin-Schild M,Abraham AT, Walker KC, Gonzales NR, Illoh K, Grotta JC, Savitz SICrit Care Med. 2009 March ; 37(3): 969–e1. ERS
    • 2. BackgroundSpontaneous ICH: one fifth of all strokes. Devastating, 30%mortality & high rate of morbidity among survivors.IVH, intraventricular extension of intracerebralhemorrhageOccurs in 45% of casesIndependent predictor of poor outcomeDirect relation between IVH volume and poor outcome /mortality 2
    • 3. Most studies investigating IVH volumeuse sophisticated and time-consumingvolumetric analyses Impractical for routine clinical use Clinicians still lack a method for easily obtaining an estimate of the IVH volume 3
    • 4. ObjectiveCreate a useful tool for rapid determination of IVHvolumeExplore the prognostic significance of IVH volumeAssess the relationship betweenIVH volume / total volume (TV = ICH vol + IVH vol)andclinical outcome 4
    • 5. METHODS: Study Design and PopulationRetrospectivePx admitted to our stroke center, April 2003 - June 2006, dx ICHInclusion • Spontaneous nontraumatic ICH • Evidence of IVH on CT done within 24 hours of onsetExclusion • ICH secondary to vascular malformations, tumor, or hemorrhagic conversion of an infarct. • patients who had CT of inadequate quality for measurement purposes.Random  population divided into an index group used for model developmentand a validation group 5
    • 6. METHODS: Measurementverify ICH location, ICH volume, hydrocephalus & IVH presence • two of the authors (HH and AB) • blinded to clinical outcomes • independently reviewed all the admission CT scanmeasure IVH volume • two of the authors (HH and ND) • Independently • Hand-drawing area of interest  calculated automatically by the Picture Archiving and Communication Systems software (General Electric Centricity workstation)  each region of interest area was then multiplied by the slice thickness (5 mm)  added together  IVH volume (mL) in each ventricle.  sum of the volumes from the four ventricles. • Maximal ventricular volume (the potential volume of blood in each ventricle) was determined for each ventricle 6
    • 7. METHODS : IVH Scoring• None of the previous scores were intended to estimate IVH volume• The third and fourth ventricles contribute much less to the ventricular volume than the lateral ventricles.• In the presence of hydrocephalus, the ventricular volume increases through expansion.each lateral ventricle 0 no blood or small amount of layering 1 up to one third filled with blood 2 one to two thirds filled with blood 3 mostly or completely filled with bloodthird & fourth ventricles 0 no blood 1 partially or completely filled with bloodHydrocephalus 0 absent 1 Present 7
    • 8. Statistical Analysis• SPSS version 15• Bernouli function, Cronbach’s alpha• Logistic regression, log-likelihood ration method, Cohen’s method, etc• p value <0.05 was considered significant. 8
    • 9. 178 patients with IVH  4 patients were excluded because ofpoor quality CT (severe motion artifacts)  final cohortconsisted of 174 patients. 9
    • 10. Interclass correlationto assess inter-rater reliability for ICH volume, IVHvolume, and IVH scoringbetween the two raters for IVH grading 0.915 ( 95 % CI 0.835–0.95, p < 0.001)between the two raters for IVH volume 0.995 ( 95 % CI 0.973–0.999, p < 0.001)resident 0.941 (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.846–0.977)medical student 0.8 (p = 0.001, 95% CI 0.48–0.92) 10
    • 11. Model Development in the Index Groupa volume ratio of 9–10:1 between the lateral ventricles and thethird and fourth ventricles. 11
    • 12. The final formula for calculating the IVHS:• RV stands for right ventricle score (0–3),• LV for left ventricle score (0–3),• III for third ventricle score (0, 1),• IV for fourth ventricle score (0, 1),• H for the presence of hydrocephalus (0, 1).• IVHS ranges from 0 (no IVH) to 23 (all ventricles filled with blood and hydrocephalus present)Linear regression of the IVH grade and hydrocephalus to IVH volume yielded theformula. Cronbach’s alpha for the five components of IVH scoring was 0.74 The formula for converting IVHS to volume is 12
    • 13. 13
    • 14. 14
    • 15. each lateral ventricle 0 no blood or small amount of layering 1 up to one third filled with blood 2 one to two thirds filled with blood 3 mostly or completely filled with bloodthird & fourth ventricles 0 no blood 1 partially or completely filled with bloodHydrocephalus 0 absent 1 Present 15
    • 16. Validation GroupFig 2. Curve fitting of IVHS to IVH volumein the index cohort (A) and calculated tomeasured IVH volume in the validationcohort (B). IVHS-IVH Score.Cronbach’s alpha of the fivecomponents of IVHS was 0.714.Regression of calculated IVH volume tomeasured IVH volume yielded a good fitwith R2= .8 (p < 0.001).This indicates that the IVHS conversionformula performs equally well in thevalidation and index cohort. 16
    • 17. Exploring IVH, ICH, and Total Volume toClinical Outcome Using the entire cohort of 174 patients, we explored the correlation of IVH, ICH, and TV (TV, the sum of ICH and IVH volume) with outcome (mRS) using bivariate correlation: • IVH volume R = .305; • ICH volume R = .468; • TV R = .571 (p < 0.001 for all three correlations)Partial correlation of TV with mRS controlling for ICH volume yielded R = .3 forTV (p < 0.001).This represents the additional variance of the outcome explained by adding IVHto ICH volume. 17
    • 18. Fig 3a. Total volume (TV) as a predictor of poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale 4–6) and mortality. The star marks the cutoff point. Further exploration of TV using receiver operating characteristics curve showed a cutoff of 40 mL for poor outcome and 60 mL for mortality. In fact, beyond 50 mL of TV,*Receiver operating characteristics analysis of 100% of patients had aICH volume yielded a cutoff of 30 mL for poor outcome.mortality and 25 mL for poor outcome. 18
    • 19. • Logistic regression  association of the cutoffs for ICH volume and TV (both measured and calculated) with poor outcome and mortality.• In both categories, TV was a significantly better predictor than ICH volume alone. The measured and calculated values performed similarly. 19
    • 20. Predictors of Mortality and Poor OutcomeAge -Infratentorial location -Hydrocephalus -GCS Poor outcome OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.52–0.8, p < 0.001 Mortality OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.83, p < 0.001TV Poor outcome OR = 20.1, 95% CI 4.3–95.7, p < 0.001 Mortality OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.8–10.6, p = 0.001The role of variables in predicting poor outcome and mortalitywas explored using logistic regression.The only variables retaining independent association withmortality & poor outcome were GCS & TV 20
    • 21. Self-fulfilling Prophecy• Admission status: full care vs early care limitation• Early care limit.–(log. reg.)– predict death• TV + GCS + age + early care limit.  death Early limitation of care was independently associated with mortality (p = 0.003, OR = 11, 95% CI 2.3–53.2)• GCS + TV + Age ~ Withdrawal of care  death The decision to withdraw care was not an independent predictor of mortality (p = 0.9) 21
    • 22. Comparing IVHS with Previous Scores1. Graeb score vs IVHS, TV2. ICH score vs GCS + TV > 60• Although IVHS and the Graeb score performed similarly, once TV was used the specificity of the score increased substantially. 23
    • 23. Comparing ICH Score andComposite score (GlasgowComa Scale [GCS ] + TV>60 mL)as predictors of mortality 24
    • 24. Comparing Graeb Score,intraventricular extension ofintracerebral hemorrhage (IVH)score (IVHS) and TV aspredictors of mortality. 25
    • 25. - Volume Spearman correlation Outcome (mRS)- Score IVHS R = .346 Graeb R = .332 (p = 0.52 comparing the correlation of IVHS and Graeb score with mRS) TV (calculated) R = .571 (p = 0.004 comparing Graeb score and TV) ICH score R = .589 Composite score (GCS + TV >60) R = .689 (p < 0.001 comparing ICH score and composite score) p < 0.001 for all correlationsMeasuring IVH volume using IVHS to produce TV  the most robustcorrelation with outcome.Substituting TV for ICH volume in the ICH score produces a score that is morespecific for mortality and has a better correlation with outcome. 26
    • 26. DISCUSSION• The mechanisms by which IVH volume affects outcome: increased intracranial pressure with reduced cerebral perfusion, mechanical disruption, ventricular wall distension, and possibly an inflammatory response.• We identified a cutoff of TV >40 mL beyond which the patients were 41 times more likely to have a poor outcome and a “poor-outcome threshold” of 50 mL above which 100% of patients had a poor outcome. A cutoff of TV >60 mL  mortality; however, we did not identify a “lethal volume” (in our cohort patients with TV >60 mL had a 60% rate of mortality) as previously reported. (Previous study: “Lethal volume” of >20 mL)• This discrepancy may be explained by differences in measurement techniques, improved image quality and resolution in our study, and advances in the intensive care of IVH patients. 27
    • 27. • IVHS as a unique measure of prognostic value: ability to estimate volume  TV (most scales code IVH as absent or present)  score using only TV and GCS is superior to the prevalent ICH score in predicting mortality  reflect the additional impact of IVH volume on outcome.• TV may be used in two ways in clinical research rather than using the traditional ICH volume: to stratify patients when assessing treatment effect; and as a signal for treatment success by showing an increase in the proportion of patients achieving favorable outcome with TV >40 mL. 28
    • 28. Limitations• It is retrospective and as such the outcome correlation may need to be validated prospectively.• Clinical endpoint occurs at discharge from the hospital and not at a set time. It is possible that some patients discharged with a poor outcome may improve by that time point. Our choice to define poor outcome as mRS 4–6 on discharge (instead of the traditional mRS 3–6 at 90 days) is meant to partially compensate for this deficiency 29
    • 29. • The efficacy of surgical intervention could not be assessed in this work. The outcome of our cohort represents patients who received routine ICU and neurosurgical care in a large stroke center• Hydrocephalus needs to be identified  may present a problem with inexperienced clinicians or when hydrocephalus is mild and in places when radiology advice is not readily available• Reaffirms the concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy” in IVH patients. Even after controlling for age, TV, and GCS early limitation of care predicted mortality in our cohort 30
    • 30. ConclusionIVHS allows for rapid estimation of actual IVH volumewithin minutes from the initial CT scan of patients withICH.IVH volume combined with ICH volume allows forestimating TV, which is a powerful determinant ofoutcome.This information may be used in the acute setting toinform patients and families and in research settingsto stratify patients in treatment vs. control groups. 31
    • 31. Implication?? 32
    • 32. 33
    • 33. 34
    • 34. IVH Score 35
    • 35. Graeb Score (range 0-12) 36
    • 36. LeRoux Score (range 0-16) 37
    • 37. 38
    • 38. 39
    • 39. 40
    • 40. Management of Intraventricular HemorrhageHinson et al 41
    • 41. 42
    • 42. END. 43

    ×