Abstract 96: What Critical Volume of Intraventricular Hemorrhage is Important in Intracerebral Haemorrhage? Interact2 Results

Craig Anderson,Edward Chan,Xia Wang,Hisatomi Arima,Emma Heeley,Christian Stapf,Thompson Robinson,Yining Huang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.96
IF: 10.17
2015-01-01
Stroke
Abstract:Background and purpose: Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) predicts outcome in acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), but there is uncertainty over the strength of association and what clinically relevant threshold volume is relevant to prognosis. We aimed to elucidate risk associations of IVH and outcome in participants of the INTERACT2 study. Methods: INTERACT2 was an international, multicenter, prospective, open, blinded endpoint, randomized controlled trial of 2839 patients with ICH (<6 hr) and elevated systolic BP (SBP) who were randomly assigned to intensive (target SBP <140mmHg) or guideline-based (SBP <180mmHg) BP management in 2008-2012. Associations of 740 (26%) patients with IVH on poor outcome (mRS >3) at 90 days, were determined in logistic regression models. Results: Patients with ICH-IVH were significantly older, had greater clinical severity, and more with prior ischemic stroke and deep and large hematoma volume, after adjustment for other variables. Poor outcome occurred in 67% of ICH-IVH patients compared with 49% of ICH-alone patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60; p<0.01). There was a strong linear relation between ICH volume and poor outcome. Compared to lowest quartile (Q1) IVH volume (0-2.07mL), OR for poor outcomes increased in Q2 (2.08-5.84 mL) 0.74 (95%CI 0.46-1.18 mL), Q3 (5.97-13-74 ml) 1.27 (95%CI 0.78-2.06), and Q4 (13.82-117.55) 1.56 (95%CI 0.94-2.58), p trend 0.03. Associations were stronger for death, where a baseline IVH volume of 5-10mL emerging as a statistically (and clinically) significant threshold for risk. Conclusion: While a linear relation exists between IVH and outcome in ICH, a 5-10mL volume appears an appropriate cut-point for clinical-decisions over use of interventions with risk.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?