切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华脑血管病杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (06) : 361 -366. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1673-9248.2021.06.002

论著

混合密度征不增加微创术治疗脑出血的再出血风险
梁奇明1, 连立飞1, 许峰1, 潘超1, 朱遂强1, 王芙蓉1,()   
  1. 1. 430030 武汉,华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2021-10-07 出版日期:2021-12-01
  • 通信作者: 王芙蓉
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(81974218); 国家重点研发计划(2020YFC2006001); 湖北省科技厅重点研发计划项目(2020BCA089)

CT blend sign do not increase the risk of postoperative rebleeding in minimally invasive surgery for intracerebral hemorrhage

Qiming Liang1, Lifei Lian1, Feng Xu1, Chao Pan1, Suiqiang Zhu1, Furong Wang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Neurology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
  • Received:2021-10-07 Published:2021-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Furong Wang
引用本文:

梁奇明, 连立飞, 许峰, 潘超, 朱遂强, 王芙蓉. 混合密度征不增加微创术治疗脑出血的再出血风险[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 361-366.

Qiming Liang, Lifei Lian, Feng Xu, Chao Pan, Suiqiang Zhu, Furong Wang. CT blend sign do not increase the risk of postoperative rebleeding in minimally invasive surgery for intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. Chinese Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 361-366.

目的

本研究旨在探讨基线CT的混合密度征对自发性幕上脑出血患者微创术后再出血的预测价值。

方法

回顾性分析2013年7月至2016年6月于华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院接受立体定向微创术联合重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂治疗的自发性幕上脑出血患者。将术后复查CT较基线或前一次CT的血肿体积增加≥5 ml定义为术后再出血。比较再出血组与非再出血组的影像学特征、临床特点及对预后的影响。应用Logistic回归模型分析混合密度征的出现与术后再出血之间的关系。

结果

共294例患者纳入研究,再出血率为7.1%(21/294)。再出血组穿刺损伤比例高于非再出血组(47.6% vs 16.8%),差异具有统计学意义(χ2=10.061,P=0.002)。混合密度征阳性组100例,有7例(7.0%,7/100)发生再出血,混合密度征阴性组194例,有14例(7.2%,14/194)发生再出血,2组差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.005,P=0.946)。多因素Logistic回归分析表明,术后再出血的独立预测指标仅有穿刺损伤(OR=4.168,95%可信区间:1.649~10.537,P=0.003),混合密度征不增加再出血风险(OR=0.951,95%可信区间:0.357~2.533,P=0.920)。

结论

基线CT上发现的混合密度征不增加微创术治疗脑出血术后再出血风险,而穿刺损伤与术后再出血关系密切。

Objective

To determine the value of the CT blend sign in predicting rebleeding after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

Methods

The clinical data of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, who were treated with MIS plus recombinant tissue plasminogen activator at Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from July 2013 to June 2016, were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative rebleeding was defined as an increase in hematoma volume of ≥5 ml assessed by CT compared with that on baseline or previous CT. The imaging features, clinical features and prognosis of rebleeding group and non-rebleeding group were compared. Logistic model was used to analyze the relationship between the appearance of blend sign and postoperative rebleeding.

Results

A total of 294 patients were included and the rebleeding rate was 7.1% (21/294). The proportion of puncture damage was significantly higher in the rebleeding group than in the non-rebleeding group (47.6% vs 16.8%, χ2=10.061, P=0.002). Rebleeding occurred in 7 cases (7.0%) in the blend sign-positive group (n=100) and 14 cases (7.2%) in the blend sign-negative group (n=194), and there was no statistically significant (χ2=0.005, P=0.946). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the only independent predictor of postoperative rebleeding was puncture injury (OR=4.168, 95%CI: 1.649~10.537, P=0.003). CT blend sign did not predict the risk of rebleeding (OR=0.951, 95%CI: 0.357~2.533, P=0.920).

Conclusion

The CT blend sign on baseline CT did not imply the risk of rebleeding after MIS for ICH. Puncture injury is closely associated with postoperative rebleeding.

图1 自发性幕上脑出血患者CT影像学征象。图a示混合密度征:血肿由2种密度的成分组成(箭头所示);图b示穿刺道出血:穿刺路径上新发的皮层小血肿(箭头所示);图c示术后蛛网膜下腔出血:与图b为同一患者,穿刺侧外侧裂可见新发蛛网膜下腔出血(箭头所示)
表1 再出血组与非再出血组自发性幕上脑出血患者临床特点比较
指标 再出血组(n=21) 非再出血组(n=273) 统计值 P
年龄[岁,MQR)] 53(39,63) 51(47,62) U=2734.500 0.725
性别(例,男/女) 18/3 186/87 χ2=2.838 0.092
吸烟史[例(%)] 10(47.6) 101(37.0) χ2=0.936 0.333
饮酒史[例(%)] 12(57.1) 93(34.1) χ2=4.523 0.033
高血压病史[例(%)] 18(85.7) 187(68.5) χ2=2.332 0.127
糖尿病史[例(%)] 0(0) 20(7.3) χ2=0.697 0.404
入院收缩压(mmHg,
x¯
±s
164.52±28.36 157.38±23.83 t=1.306 0.193
入院舒张压(mmHg,
x¯
±s
98.38±16.95 92.51±16.74 1.546 0.123
入院GCS评分[分,MQR)] 10(8,13) 12(9,13) U=2302.500 0.130
入院NIHSS评分[分,MQR)] 21(13,25) 17(13,25) U=3245.500 0.297
血小板[×109/L,MQR)] 185(151,244) 196(167,232) U=2804.500 0.869
PT[s,MQR)] 13.3(12.9,13.7) 13.6(13.1,14.1) U=945.000 0.185
APTT[s,MQR)] 34.3(32.3,37.0) 33.9(31.8,36.3) U=1323.500 0.439
INR[MQR)] 1.02(1.00,1.05) 1.05(0.99,1.10) U=2148.500 0.061
肌酐[μmol/L,MQR)] 78(69,91) 71(61,90) U=3185.500 0.329
血糖[mmol/L,MQR)] 6.55(6.08,7.49) 7.46(6.29,9.12) U=1049.500 0.068
起病至基线CT时间[h,MQR)] 18.65(7.52,36.65) 18.63(6.87,36.63) U=2682.000 0.623
出血部位[例(%)] χ2=3.284 0.180

基底节区

19(90.5) 213(78.0)

丘脑

2(9.5) 24(8.8)

脑叶

0(0) 36(13.2)
脑室积血[例(%)] 10(47.6) 99(36.2) χ2=1.078 0.299
混合密度征[例(%)] 7(33.3) 93(34.1) χ2=0.005 0.946
术前血肿体积[ml,MQR)] 33.70(22.58,53.00) 35.70(26.20,47.80) U=2701.500 0.660
术前血肿扩大[例(%)] 4(19.0) 22(8.1) χ2=1.717 0.190
表2 再出血组与非再出血组自发性幕上脑出血患者手术情况及预后比较
图2 自发性幕上脑出血患者术后是否再出血组6个月改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分情况
表3 混合密度征阳性组与阴性组自发性幕上脑出血患者临床资料比较
表4 自发性幕上脑出血患者术后再出血危险因素的Logistic回归分析
1
Van Asch CJ, Luitse MJ, Rinkel GJ, et al. Incidence, case fatality, and functional outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and ethnic origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Lancet Neurol, 2010, 9(2): 167-176.
2
Hemphill JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, et al. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association [J]. Stroke, 2015, 46(7): 2032-2060.
3
Hanley DF, Thompson RE, Muschelli J, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial [J]. Lancet Neurol, 2016, 15(12): 1228-1237.
4
Zhou X, Chen J, Li Q, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J]. Stroke, 2012, 43(11): 2923-2930.
5
张桂茹, 翟明明. 微创血肿清除治疗对脑出血后神经功能恢复和经济支出的影响 [J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2012, 6(4): 203-205.
6
张和. 微创清除脑血肿的得与失 [J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2019, 14(8): 832-841.
7
Morgenstern LB, Demchuk AM, Kim DH, et al. Rebleeding leads to poor outcome in ultra-early craniotomy for intracerebral hemorrhage [J]. Neurology, 2001, 56(10): 1294-1299.
8
Ding W, Xiang Y, Liao J, et al. Minimally invasive puncture versus conventional craniotomy for spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis [J]. Neurochirurgie, 2021, 67(4): 375-382.
9
Morotti A, Boulouis G, Dowlatshahi D, et al. Standards for detecting, interpreting, and reporting noncontrast computed tomographic markers of intracerebral hemorrhage expansion [J]. Ann Neurol, 2019, 86(4): 480-492.
10
Morotti A, Romero JM, Jessel MJ, et al. Effect of CTA tube current on spot sign detection and accuracy for prediction of intracerebral hemorrhage expansion [J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2016, 37(10): 1781-1786.
11
Kazui S, Naritomi H, Yamamoto H, et al. Enlargement of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Incidence and time course [J]. Stroke, 1996, 27(10): 1783-1787.
12
Brouwers HB, Chang Y, Falcone GJ, et al. Predicting hematoma expansion after primary intracerebral hemorrhage [J]. JAMA Neurol, 2014, 71(2): 158-164.
13
Xu F, Tang Z, Luo X, et al. No evidence of preoperative hematoma growth representing an increased postoperative rebleeding risk for minimally invasive aspiration and thrombolysis of ICH [J]. Br J Neurosurg, 2010, 24(3): 268-274.
14
梁奇明, 许峰, 连立飞, 等. 脑出血微创术后再出血的危险因素分析 [J]. 神经损伤与功能重建, 2015, 10(5): 394-398.
15
Lian LF, Xu F, Tang ZP, et al. Intraclot recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator reduces perihematomal edema and mortality in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage [J]. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci, 2014, 34(2): 165-171.
16
Morgan T, Zuccarello M, Narayan R, et al. Preliminary findings of the minimally-invasive surgery plus rtPA for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE) clinical trial [J]. Acta Neurochir Suppl, 2008, 105: 147-151.
17
Li Q, Zhang G, Huang YJ, et al. Blend sign on computed tomography: novel and reliable predictor for early hematoma growth in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage [J]. Stroke, 2015, 46(8): 2119-2123.
18
Yagi K, Tao Y, Hara K, et al. Does noncontrast computed tomography scan predict rebleeding after endoscopic surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage? [J]. World Neurosurg, 2019, 127: e965-e971.
19
Wu G, Shen Z, Wang L, et al. Post-operative re-bleeding in patients with hypertensive ICH is closely associated with the CT blend sign [J]. BMC Neurol, 2017, 17(1): 131.
[1] 易斐, 文华轩, 丁妍, 陈芷萱, 李胜利. 胎儿孤立性小脑出血的产前超声诊断[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(11): 1173-1179.
[2] 张忠满, 朱轶, 李伟, 安迪, 邹乐, 夏雨, 丁涛, 时育彤, 陈旭锋. 行体外膜肺氧合患者脑出血危险因素分析[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(06): 454-459.
[3] 李祥魁, 薛玉荣, 丁凯, 孔劲松. ESPB、SAPB、TPVB对胸腔镜微创术血流动力学、应激反应的影响[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 245-247.
[4] 徐昌林, 程浩, 刘从国, 高涢, 李毅, 乔媛媛, 陈晟. Rosa定位钻孔血肿清除术与经验性定位颅骨钻孔血肿清除术治疗自发性脑出血的疗效对比分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 97-101.
[5] 刁正文, 徐愈畅, 张杰, 张华军, 李秋霖, 陈卉. β-七叶皂苷钠联合甘油果糖治疗脑出血的临床效果分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(01): 32-37.
[6] 孙斌, 何宗钊, 王皓, 王婷, 刘晓琴. 西宁地区高血压脑出血手术患者严重程度与炎症反应变化特征的观察研究[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(01): 62-68.
[7] 运陌, 李茂芳, 王浩, 刘东远. 微创穿刺引流联合吡拉西坦、乌拉地尔治疗基底节区高血压性脑出血的临床研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 278-285.
[8] 邹勇, 顾应江, 丁昊, 杨呈浩, 陈岷辉, 蔡昱. 基于Nrf2/HO-1及NF-κB信号通路探讨葛根素对大鼠脑出血后早期炎症反应及氧化应激反应的影响[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 271-277.
[9] 刘政委, 仪立志, 尹夕龙, 孔文龙, 纠智松, 张文源. 锥颅血肿外引流与神经内镜手术治疗老年基底节区高血压性脑出血的疗效分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 299-303.
[10] 谭可, 李锦平, 彭玉涛, 吴文汧, 杨子文, 汪阳, 陶立波, 刘畅. 机器人辅助立体定向血肿引流术治疗自发性脑出血疗效及卫生经济学评价[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 205-214.
[11] 陈显金, 吴芹芹, 何长春, 张庆华. 利用多模态医学数据和机器学习构建脑出血预后预测模型的研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 193-198.
[12] 韦维, 李忠华, 黄礼德. 机器人辅助第四脑室血肿穿刺抽吸外引流术[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 255-256.
[13] 孟永生, 雍容, 吉晓丽, 赵钰龙, 赵鹏飞. 右美托咪定复合七氟醚对脑出血继发性损伤的预防效果及神经保护机制分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(01): 44-50.
[14] 丁晶, 李培雯, 许迎春. 醒脑开窍针刺法在神经急重症中的应用[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 161-164.
[15] 赵暾, 徐霁华, 何有娣, 鲁明. 误诊为脑梗死且险些溶栓的急性自发微量脑出血一例[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 369-372.
阅读次数
全文


摘要