Background and aim The role of imaging for the detection of vascular lesions in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is poorly defined. A study was undertaken to compare the yield of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in patients with ICH with intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and those without IVH.
Methods The DSA database at our institution was reviewed for patients who underwent DSA for acute spontaneous ICH over a period of 68 months. Patients with known vascular malformation or brain neoplasm, prior surgery, ischemic infarction, subarachnoid hemorrhage or isolated IVH were excluded. Patients were grouped into those with associated IVH (group A) and those without (group B). Baseline demographic and clinical data, non-contrast head CT (NCCT) probability for a vascular lesion and angiographic results were compared.
Results 293 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (141 women, 152 men, mean age 57, range 18–88), 139 in group A and 154 in group B. Age and sex distributions were similar (p>0.05). Group A patients were more likely to be hypertensive or coagulopathic (p=0.001). Group B had more patients with high probability NCCT scans (p<0.001). Underlying vascular lesions were found in 21 patients (15.1%) in group A and 34 (22.1%) in group B (p>0.05).
Conclusion The presence of IVH in patients with acute spontaneous ICH is not associated with an increased risk of an underlying vascular lesion and should not be used to select patients for neurovascular evaluation.
- Brain hemorrhage
- intraventricular hemorrhage
- cerebral angiography
- ct angiography
- arteriovenous malformation
- flow diverter
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Washington University Human Research Protection Office.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.