English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

BACKGROUND Hematoma expansion is associated with poor outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients. The spot sign and the blend sign are reliable tools for predicting hematoma expansion in ICH patients. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the two signs in the prediction of hematoma expansion. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients with spontaneous ICH were screened for the presence of the computed tomography angiography (CTA) spot sign and the non-contrast CT (NCCT) blend sign within 6 hours after onset of symptoms. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the spot sign and the blend sign in predicting hematoma expansion were calculated. The accuracy of the spot sign and the blend sign in predicting hematoma expansion was analyzed by receiver-operator analysis. RESULTS A total of 115 patients were enrolled in this study. The spot sign was observed in 25 (21.74%) patients, whereas the blend sign was observed in 22 (19.13%) patients. Of the 28 patients with hematoma expansion, the CTA spot sign was found on admission CT scans in 16 (57.14%) and the NCCT blend sign in 12 (42.86%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the spot sign for predicting hematoma expansion were 57.14%, 89.66%, 64.00%, and 86.67%, respectively. In contrast, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the blend sign were 42.86%, 88.51%, 54.55%, and 82.80%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the spot sign was 0.734, which was higher than that of the blend sign (0.657). CONCLUSIONS Both the spot sign and the blend sign seemed to be good predictors for hematoma expansion, and the spot sign appeared to have better predictive accuracy.

The Accuracy of the Spot Sign and the Blend Sign for Predicting Hematoma Expansion in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage