Post hoc analysis reveals no link between perihematomal edema Hounsfield units and clinical outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage patients, suggesting new imaging markers may be needed.
Background Lower mean Hounsfield unit (mHU) values, indicating greater computed tomography (CT) hypodensity of perihematomal edema (PHE), have been proposed as a novel quantitative imaging marker in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We explored its evolution and prognostic importance in a post hoc analysis of the Intracerebral Hemorrhage-Deferoxamine trial (NCT02175225). Methods We included participants with primary supratentorial ICH who had available CT scans at baseline and follow-up after 72–96 h and 90-days and/or 180-days outcome data. The primary exposure variable was the mHU of PHE measured on the follow-up CT scan. We investigated (1) its change from baseline and (2) its association with unfavorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 3–6) in adjusted mixed-effects models, accounting for between-center and between-participant variability. Results Among 273 of 293 Intracerebral Hemorrhage-Deferoxamine trial participants eligible for analysis (median age 61 years, 39% female), the median (interquartile range) mHU of PHE was 30.3 (28.3–32.7) at baseline and 26.9 (24.6–29.2) at follow-up. Τhe mHU of PHE decreased from baseline to follow-up scan by an average of 3.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2–4.0, p < 0.001). There was no association between the mHU of follow-up PHE with unfavorable outcome at 90 days ( n = 273; odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.95–1.17, p = 0.32), or at 180 days ( n = 261; odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.92–1.11, p = 0.81). Conclusions Perihematomal edema after ICH tends to grow more hypodense on CT by day 3–4 compared with baseline. The degree of PHE hypodensity was not associated with long-term clinical outcomes in the setting of a multicenter randomized trial, challenging its utility as a radiological marker in ICH research. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02175225.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polymeris et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: