Comparative evaluation of H&H and WFNS grading scales with modified H&H (sans systemic disease): A study on 1000 patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

The comparative studies on grading in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) had several limitations such as the unclear grading of Glasgow Coma Scale 15 with neurological deficits in World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), and the inclusion of systemic disease in Hunt and Hess (H&H) scales. Their differential incremental impacts and optimum cut-off values for unfavourable outcome are unsettled. This is a prospective comparison of prognostic impacts of grading schemes to address these issues. SAH patients were assessed using WFNS, H&H (including systemic disease), modified H&H (sans systemic disease) and followed up with Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) at 3 months. Their performance characteristics were analysed as incremental ordinal variables and different grading scale dichotomies using rank-order correlation, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, Youden's J and multivariate analyses. A total of 1016 patients were studied. As univariate incremental variable, H&H sans systemic disease had the best negative rank-order correlation coefficient (-0.453) with respect to lower GOS (p < 0.001). As univariate dichotomized category, WFNS grades 3-5 had the best performance index of 0.39 to suggest unfavourable GOS with a specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 51%. In multivariate incremental analysis, H&H sans systemic disease had the greatest adjusted incremental impact of 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.91) against a lower GOS as compared to 0.6 (95% CI 0.45-0.74) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.68) for H&H and WFNS grades, respectively. In multivariate categorical analysis, H&H grades 4-5 sans systemic disease had the greatest impact on unfavourable GOS with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.06 (95% CI 3.94-9.32). To conclude, H&H grading sans systemic disease had the greatest impact on unfavourable GOS. Though systemic disease is an important prognostic factor, it should be considered distinctly from grading. Appropriate cut-off values suggesting unfavourable outcome for H&H and WFNS were 4-5 and 3-5, respectively, indicating the importance of neurological deficits in addition to level of consciousness.

Assessment of Utilization of Rehabilitation Services among Stroke Survivors

“…The social burden of various types of stroke is enormous, especially in developing countries. [ 5 6 7 ] The present study shows similar result as previous studies. Most of the patients were male and aged <45 years.…”

Outcomes Following Possible Undiagnosed Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Contemporary Analysis

“…In assessing the external validity of these findings, it is reassuring that the observed rates of mortality and severe disability among patients with possible undiagnosed aSAH in this study are comparable to other similar studies on the topic (mortality at up to 1 year of 17% vs. 15%–19% and severe disability [mRS > 4] rates of 20% vs. 15%–36%) . Similarly, the observed outcome rates in the whole and restricted control cohorts are consistent with the expected benchmark rates for similar cohorts as assessed in contemporary studies …”

Computed tomography in the assessment of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage for clinical outcome: an observational cohort study

“…Many studies have compared clinical grading scales such as the Hunt and Hess scale, WFNS, and Glasgow Coma Scale for predicting unfavourable outcome in aSAH [29,30]. To our knowledge, however, this study is the first to compare eight radiological scales, grading subarachnoid or ventricular haemorrhage or both for the prediction of DCI, acute hydrocephalus, and functional outcome at 3 months in a large aSAH population.…”

“…This expected finding illustrates the importance of clinical variables included in the SAPS II scale, particularly age and initial Glasgow Coma Scale score [23]. Indeed, the initial neurological assessment by means of the Glasgow Coma Scale or WFNS scale is a crucial determinant for neurological outcome and death [22,29,43,44]. New grading scales using both clinical and radiological scores (SAFIR grading scale [45], Southwestern Severity Index [46]) have…”