动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的预后:改良亨特和赫斯分级表

F. Al‐Mufti, A. Dicpinigaitis, Christian A Bowers, Jan Claassen, Soojin Park, Sachin Agarwal, Priyank Khandelwal, Adnan I. Qureshi, S. Majidi, Johanna T. Fifi, Seon‐Kyu Lee, A. Jadhav, S. Yaghi, E. Raz, Sudhakar Satti, Hooman Kamel, A. Merkler, N. Dangayach, Adnan Siddiqui, Saef Izzy, Lucas Elijovich, D. Yavagal, E. S. Connolly, Chirag D. Gandhi, R. L. Macdonald, Stephan Mayer
{"title":"动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的预后:改良亨特和赫斯分级表","authors":"F. Al‐Mufti, A. Dicpinigaitis, Christian A Bowers, Jan Claassen, Soojin Park, Sachin Agarwal, Priyank Khandelwal, Adnan I. Qureshi, S. Majidi, Johanna T. Fifi, Seon‐Kyu Lee, A. Jadhav, S. Yaghi, E. Raz, Sudhakar Satti, Hooman Kamel, A. Merkler, N. Dangayach, Adnan Siddiqui, Saef Izzy, Lucas Elijovich, D. Yavagal, E. S. Connolly, Chirag D. Gandhi, R. L. Macdonald, Stephan Mayer","doi":"10.1161/svin.124.001349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n This study proposes a modification to the traditional Hunt and Hess (tHH) grading scale for prognostication in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), which differentiates the most severe‐grade patients based on the presence or absence of brainstem dysfunction [determined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores 3‐5].\n \n \n \n Weighted aSAH hospitalizations were retrospectively identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019 and were stratified by tHH and modified HH (mHH) grades. mHH grade 5 was defined as tHH grade 5 with GCS score 3–5, while mHH grade 4 comprised tHH grade 5 with GCS score 6–8 and tHH grade 4. HH grades 1–3 do not differ between the traditional and modified scales. Measures of diagnostic performance were compared for the primary study end point [poor outcome as determined by the previously validated NIS‐SAH Outcome Measure (NIS‐SOM), shown to have high concordance with modified Rankin Scale scores > 2]. External validation of the mHH was performed using data from a prospectively maintained aSAH registry.\n \n \n \n Among 6130 aSAH hospitalizations, 2245 (36%) were tHH grade 5. Seven hundred and eighty‐five (35%) of these had a GCS 3–5 and were designated as mHH grade 5. Poor outcomes were identified in 78% and 77% of grade 4 tHH and mHH, respectively, and in 83% and 95% of grade 5 tHH and mHH, respectively. In comparison with the tHH, the mHH achieved superior discrimination [c‐statistic 0.793 (95% CI 0.768, 0.818) versus 0.780 (95% CI 0.750, 0.807); DeLong p < 0.001] for poor outcome, as well as improved specificity (0.929 versus 0.304) and positive predictive value (PPV) (0.949 versus 0.827). External registry validation of the mHH demonstrated excellent discrimination [c‐statistic 0.835 (95% CI 0.801, 0.870)], with a specificity of 0.950 and PPV of 0.905.\n \n \n \n The mHH achieved a favorable diagnostic performance profile using retrospective data and may aid in the prognostication of high‐severity patients with aSAH.\n","PeriodicalId":21977,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","volume":"32 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostication Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Modified Hunt and Hess Grading Scale\",\"authors\":\"F. Al‐Mufti, A. Dicpinigaitis, Christian A Bowers, Jan Claassen, Soojin Park, Sachin Agarwal, Priyank Khandelwal, Adnan I. Qureshi, S. Majidi, Johanna T. Fifi, Seon‐Kyu Lee, A. Jadhav, S. Yaghi, E. Raz, Sudhakar Satti, Hooman Kamel, A. Merkler, N. Dangayach, Adnan Siddiqui, Saef Izzy, Lucas Elijovich, D. Yavagal, E. S. Connolly, Chirag D. Gandhi, R. L. Macdonald, Stephan Mayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/svin.124.001349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n This study proposes a modification to the traditional Hunt and Hess (tHH) grading scale for prognostication in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), which differentiates the most severe‐grade patients based on the presence or absence of brainstem dysfunction [determined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores 3‐5].\\n \\n \\n \\n Weighted aSAH hospitalizations were retrospectively identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019 and were stratified by tHH and modified HH (mHH) grades. mHH grade 5 was defined as tHH grade 5 with GCS score 3–5, while mHH grade 4 comprised tHH grade 5 with GCS score 6–8 and tHH grade 4. HH grades 1–3 do not differ between the traditional and modified scales. Measures of diagnostic performance were compared for the primary study end point [poor outcome as determined by the previously validated NIS‐SAH Outcome Measure (NIS‐SOM), shown to have high concordance with modified Rankin Scale scores > 2]. External validation of the mHH was performed using data from a prospectively maintained aSAH registry.\\n \\n \\n \\n Among 6130 aSAH hospitalizations, 2245 (36%) were tHH grade 5. Seven hundred and eighty‐five (35%) of these had a GCS 3–5 and were designated as mHH grade 5. Poor outcomes were identified in 78% and 77% of grade 4 tHH and mHH, respectively, and in 83% and 95% of grade 5 tHH and mHH, respectively. In comparison with the tHH, the mHH achieved superior discrimination [c‐statistic 0.793 (95% CI 0.768, 0.818) versus 0.780 (95% CI 0.750, 0.807); DeLong p < 0.001] for poor outcome, as well as improved specificity (0.929 versus 0.304) and positive predictive value (PPV) (0.949 versus 0.827). External registry validation of the mHH demonstrated excellent discrimination [c‐statistic 0.835 (95% CI 0.801, 0.870)], with a specificity of 0.950 and PPV of 0.905.\\n \\n \\n \\n The mHH achieved a favorable diagnostic performance profile using retrospective data and may aid in the prognostication of high‐severity patients with aSAH.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":21977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology\",\"volume\":\"32 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.124.001349\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.124.001349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究对传统的亨特和赫斯(Hunt and Hess,tHH)分级表进行了修改,用于预测动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)的预后,根据是否存在脑干功能障碍[由格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)3-5分决定]来区分最严重等级的患者。 mHH5级定义为GCS评分为3-5分的tHH5级,而mHH4级包括GCS评分为6-8分的tHH5级和tHH4级。HH 1-3 级在传统量表和修订量表中没有区别。对主要研究终点[不良预后由之前验证的NIS-SAH预后量表(NIS-SOM)确定,该量表与改良Rankin量表评分>2的一致性很高]的诊断结果进行了比较。mHH 的外部验证是通过前瞻性的 aSAH 登记数据进行的。 在 6130 例 aSAH 住院病例中,2245 例(36%)为 tHH 5 级。其中 785 人(35%)的 GCS 为 3-5 级,被定为 mHH 5 级。在 4 级 tHH 和 mHH 中,分别有 78% 和 77% 的患者预后不良,而在 5 级 tHH 和 mHH 中,分别有 83% 和 95% 的患者预后不良。与 tHH 相比,mHH 对不良预后的识别率更高[c 统计量为 0.793(95% CI 0.768,0.818)对 0.780(95% CI 0.750,0.807);DeLong p <0.001],特异性(0.929 对 0.304)和阳性预测值 (PPV) (0.949 对 0.827)也有所提高。mHH 的外部登记验证显示了出色的鉴别力[c 统计量为 0.835(95% CI 0.801,0.870)],特异性为 0.950,PPV 为 0.905。 利用回顾性数据,mHH 具有良好的诊断性能,可帮助预测高严重性 aSAH 患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prognostication Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Modified Hunt and Hess Grading Scale
This study proposes a modification to the traditional Hunt and Hess (tHH) grading scale for prognostication in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), which differentiates the most severe‐grade patients based on the presence or absence of brainstem dysfunction [determined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores 3‐5]. Weighted aSAH hospitalizations were retrospectively identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019 and were stratified by tHH and modified HH (mHH) grades. mHH grade 5 was defined as tHH grade 5 with GCS score 3–5, while mHH grade 4 comprised tHH grade 5 with GCS score 6–8 and tHH grade 4. HH grades 1–3 do not differ between the traditional and modified scales. Measures of diagnostic performance were compared for the primary study end point [poor outcome as determined by the previously validated NIS‐SAH Outcome Measure (NIS‐SOM), shown to have high concordance with modified Rankin Scale scores > 2]. External validation of the mHH was performed using data from a prospectively maintained aSAH registry. Among 6130 aSAH hospitalizations, 2245 (36%) were tHH grade 5. Seven hundred and eighty‐five (35%) of these had a GCS 3–5 and were designated as mHH grade 5. Poor outcomes were identified in 78% and 77% of grade 4 tHH and mHH, respectively, and in 83% and 95% of grade 5 tHH and mHH, respectively. In comparison with the tHH, the mHH achieved superior discrimination [c‐statistic 0.793 (95% CI 0.768, 0.818) versus 0.780 (95% CI 0.750, 0.807); DeLong p < 0.001] for poor outcome, as well as improved specificity (0.929 versus 0.304) and positive predictive value (PPV) (0.949 versus 0.827). External registry validation of the mHH demonstrated excellent discrimination [c‐statistic 0.835 (95% CI 0.801, 0.870)], with a specificity of 0.950 and PPV of 0.905. The mHH achieved a favorable diagnostic performance profile using retrospective data and may aid in the prognostication of high‐severity patients with aSAH.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信