This study shows the impact of neurointerventional waste on the total care costs for cerebrovascular patients. This might reflect the tendency to anticipate needs and emergencies in neurointervention. Responsible use of disposable material can be achieved by educating operators and nurses and creating operator preference cards.
Background and Purpose Prediction of intracranial aneurysm growth risk can assist physicians in planning of follow-up imaging of conservatively managed unruptured intracranial aneurysms. We therefore aimed to externally validate the ELAPSS (Earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage, aneurysm Location, Age, Population, aneurysm Size and Shape) score for prediction of the risk of unruptured intracranial aneurysm growth.
Methods From 11 international cohorts of patients ≥18 years with ≥1 unruptured intracranial aneurysm and ≥6 months of radiological follow-up, we collected data on the predictors of the ELAPSS score, and calculated 3- and 5-year absolute growth risks according to the score. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration (predicted versus observed risk) and discrimination (c-statistic).
Results We included 1,072 patients with a total of 1,452 aneurysms. During 4,268 aneurysm-years of follow-up, 199 (14%) aneurysms enlarged. Calibration was comparable to that of the development cohort with the overall observed risks within the range of the expected risks. The c-statistic was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.73) at 3 years, compared to 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.76) in the development cohort. At 5 years, the c-statistic was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), compared to 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.75) in the development cohort.
Conclusions The ELAPSS score showed accurate calibration for 3- and 5-year risks of aneurysm growth and modest discrimination in our external validation cohort. This indicates that the score is externally valid and could assist patients and physicians in predicting growth of unruptured intracranial aneurysms and plan follow-up imaging accordingly.
There is uncertainty as to the optimal initial management of patients with traumatic acute subdural hematoma, leading to regional variation in surgical policy. This can be exploited to compare the effect of various management strategies and determine best practices. This article reports such a comparative effectiveness analysis of a retrospective observational cohort of traumatic acute subdural hematoma patients in two geographically distinct neurosurgical departments chosen for theirapriori defined-diverging treatment preferences. Region A favored a strategy focused on surgical hematoma evacuation, whereas region B employed a more conservative approach, performing primary surgery less often. Region was used as a proxy for preferred treatment strategy to compare outcomes between groups, adjusted for potential confounders using multivariable logistic regression with imputation of missing data. In total, 190 patients were included: 108 from region A and 82 from region B. There were 104 males (54.7%). Matching current epidemiological developments, the median age was relatively high at 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-76). Baseline characteristics were comparable between regions. Primary evacuation was performed in 84% of patients in region A and in 65% of patients in region B (p < 0.01). Mortality was lower in region A (37% vs. 45%, p = 0.29), as was unfavorable outcome (53% vs. 62%, p = 0.23). The strategy favoring surgical evacuation was associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.88) and unfavorable outcome (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.27-1.02) 3-9 months post-injury. Therefore, in the aging population of patients with acute subdural hematoma, a treatment strategy favoring emergency hematoma evacuation might be associated with lower odds of mortality and unfavorable outcome.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.