Background: Prognostic assessments, which are crucial for decision-making in critical illnesses, have shown unsatisfactory reliability. We compared the accuracy of a widely used prognostic score against a model derived from clinical data obtained 5 days after admission for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), a condition for which prognostication has proven notoriously challenging and prone to bias. Methods: Patients enrolled in a prospective observational cohort study of spontaneous ICH underwent hourly Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) assessment. Outcome was measured at 3 months using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We analyzed the change in correlation between GCS and 3-month mRS scores from admission through day 5, and compared the performance of a parsimonious set of day 5 clinical variables against the ICH score. Results: Data was collected on 254 subjects. The ICH score and day 5 GCS score were both correlated with 3-month mRS score (p < 0.001), but the correlation was stronger with day 5 GCS score (p < 0.05 by Fisher z-transformation). Premorbid mRS score, intraventricular hemorrhage and day 5 GCS score were independent predictors of outcome (all p < 0.05 in ordinal regression model). While ICH score correctly classified good (mRS 0-3) vs. poor (mRS 4-6) outcome in 73% of cases, the day 5 model correctly classified 83% of cases. Conclusions: A simple reassessment after 5 days of care significantly improves the accuracy of prognosticating outcome in patients with ICH. These data confirm the feasibility and potential utility of early reassessments in refining prognosis for patients who survive early stabilization of a severe neurologic injury.

Keywords:
Prognosis, Critical care outcomes, Patient outcome assessment, Intracerebral hemorrhage, Neurochecks
1.
Hemphill JC 3rd, Farrant M, Neill TA Jr: Prospective validation of the ICH Score for 12-month functional outcome. Neurology 2009;73:1088-1094.
2.
Rost NS, Smith EE, Chang Y, Snider RW, Chanderraj R, Schwab K, FitzMaurice E, Wendell L, Goldstein JN, Greenberg SM, Rosand J: Prediction of functional outcome in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage: the FUNC score. Stroke 2008;39:2304-2309.
3.
Alonso A, Ebert AD, Kern R, Rapp S, Hennerici MG, Fatar M: Outcome predictors of acute stroke patients in need of intensive care treatment. Cerebrovasc Dis 2015;40:10-17.
4.
Smith EE, Shobha N, Dai D, Olson DM, Reeves MJ, Saver JL, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC, Schwamm LH: A risk score for in-hospital death in patients admitted with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. J Am Heart Assoc 2013;2:e005207.
5.
Becker KJ, Baxter AB, Cohen WA, Bybee HM, Tirschwell DL, Newell DW, Winn HR, Longstreth WT Jr: Withdrawal of support in intracerebral hemorrhage may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Neurology 2001;56:766-772.
6.
Hemphill JC 3rd, Newman J, Zhao S, Johnston SC: Hospital usage of early do-not-resuscitate orders and outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2004;35:1130-1134.
7.
Zahuranec DB, Brown DL, Lisabeth LD, Gonzales NR, Longwell PJ, Smith MA, Garcia NM, Morgenstern LB: Early care limitations independently predict mortality after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2007;68:1651-1657.
8.
Leira R, Dávalos A, Silva Y, Gil-Peralta A, Tejada J, Garcia M, Castillo J; Stroke Project, Cerebrovascular Diseases Group of the Spanish Neurological Society: Early neurologic deterioration in intracerebral hemorrhage: predictors and associated factors. Neurology 2004;63:461-467.
9.
Dowlatshahi D, Demchuk AM, Flaherty ML, Ali M, Lyden PL, Smith EE; VISTA Collaboration: Defining hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage: relationship with patient outcomes. Neurology 2011;76:1238-1244.
10.
Maas MB, Nemeth AJ, Rosenberg NF, Kosteva AR, Prabhakaran S, Naidech AM: Delayed intraventricular hemorrhage is common and worsens outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2013;80:1295-1299.
11.
Zahuranec DB, Fagerlin A, Sanchez BN, Roney ME, Thompson BB, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Morgenstern LB: Variability in physician prognosis and recommendations after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2016;86:1864-1871.
12.
Morgenstern LB, Zahuranec DB, Sánchez BN, Becker KJ, Geraghty M, Hughes R, Norris G, Hemphill JC 3rd: Full medical support for intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2015;84:1739-1744.
13.
Banks JL, Marotta CA: Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke 2007;38:1091-1096.
14.
Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, Baird T, Schulz UG, Muir KW, Bone I: Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2002;33:2243-2246.
15.
Naidech AM, Jovanovic B, Liebling S, Garg RK, Bassin SL, Bendok BR, Bernstein RA, Alberts MJ, Batjer HH: Reduced platelet activity is associated with early clot growth and worse 3-month outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2009;40:2398-2401.
16.
Maas MB, Rosenberg NF, Kosteva AR, Bauer RM, Guth JC, Liotta EM, Prabhakaran S, Naidech AM: Surveillance neuroimaging and neurologic examinations affect care for intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2013;81:107-112.
17.
Naidech AM, Beaumont JL, Berman M, Francis B, Liotta E, Maas MB, Prabhakaran S, Holl J, Cella D: Dichotomous “good outcome” indicates mobility more than cognitive or social quality of life. Crit Care Med 2015;43:1654-1659.
18.
Maas MB, Nemeth AJ, Rosenberg NF, Kosteva AR, Guth JC, Liotta EM, Prabhakaran S, Naidech AM: Subarachnoid extension of primary intracerebral hemorrhage is associated with poor outcomes. Stroke 2013;44:653-657.
19.
Saver JL: Novel end point analytic techniques and interpreting shifts across the entire range of outcome scales in acute stroke trials. Stroke 2007;38:3055-3062.
20.
Okeh UM, Okoro CN: Evaluating measures of indicators of diagnostic test performance: fundamental meanings and formulars. J Biomet Biostat 2012;3:132.
21.
Maas MB, Berman MD, Guth JC, Liotta EM, Prabhakaran S, Naidech AM: Neurochecks as a biomarker of the temporal profile and clinical impact of neurologic changes after intracerebral hemorrhage. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2015;24:2026-2031.
22.
Hwang DY, Dell CA, Sparks MJ, Watson TD, Langefeld CD, Comeau ME, Rosand J, Battey TW, Koch S, Perez ML, James ML, McFarlin J, Osborne JL, Woo D, Kittner SJ, Sheth KN: Clinician judgment vs formal scales for predicting intracerebral hemorrhage outcomes. Neurology 2016;86:126-133.
23.
Sato S, Delcourt C, Zhang S, Arima H, Heeley E, Zheng D, Al-Shahi Salman R, Stapf C, Tzourio C, Robinson T, Lindley RI, Chalmers J, Anderson CS; INTERACT2 Investigators: Determinants and prognostic significance of hematoma sedimentation levels in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis 2016;41:80-86.
24.
Senn R, Elkind MS, Montaner J, Christ-Crain M, Katan M: Potential role of blood biomarkers in the management of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;38:395-409.
25.
Maas MB, Furie KL: Molecular biomarkers in stroke diagnosis and prognosis. Biomark Med 2009;3:363-383.
26.
Hemphill JC 3rd, Bonovich DC, Besmertis L, Manley GT, Johnston SC: The ICH score: a simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2001;32:891-897.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.