2022
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.1000573
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Underlying microangiopathy and functional outcome of simultaneous multiple intracerebral hemorrhage

Abstract: ObjectiveTo identify the predominant type of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) and outcomes in patients with simultaneous multiple intracerebral hemorrhages (SMICH).MethodsConsecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from a single-center prospective cohort were retrospectively reviewed. Presumed etiology was classified according to the SMASH-U criteria. Demographics, clinical and laboratory variables, and neuroimaging data were compared between patients with primary SMICH and those with single IC… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…55 The prognostic effect of hemorrhagic locations is controversial. 47,[56][57][58] In our study, lobar ICH acted as a positive role in shortterm functional outcome, which needs further exploration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…55 The prognostic effect of hemorrhagic locations is controversial. 47,[56][57][58] In our study, lobar ICH acted as a positive role in shortterm functional outcome, which needs further exploration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The presence of CMBs in numbers ≥ 10 suggest that there is a significant degree of microvessel disease with increased SVD presence with loss of microvessel integrity and increased vulnerability to undergo extravasation of microvessel blood luminal contents to undergo diapedesis and/or rhexis (rupture).The subsequent increase in CMBs, may increase the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic intracerebral stroke.However, based on the recent literature and current evidence, the presence of CMBs should not be a contraindication to intravenous thrombolysis for the treatment of acute cerebral infarction [101]. Additionally, Chacon-Portillo et al have stated that CMBs should not dictate treatment of acute stroke [102].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%