Rebleeding of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysm After Admission: A Multidimensional Nomogram Model to Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVE

Rebleeding is recognized as the main cause of mortality after intracranial aneurysm rupture. Though timely intervention can prevent poor prognosis, there is no agreement on the surgical priority and choosing medical treatment for a short period after rupture. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors related to the rebleeding after admission and establish predicting models for better clinical decision-making.

METHODS

The patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) between January 2018 and September 2020 were reviewed. All patients fell to the primary and the validation cohort by January 2020. The hemodynamic parameters were determined through the computational fluid dynamics simulation. Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify the risk factors of rebleeding. Based on the independent risk factors, nomogram models were built, and their predicting accuracy was assessed by using the area under the curves (AUCs).

RESULT: A total of 577 patients with RIAs were enrolled in this present study, 86 patients of them were identified as undergoing rebleeding after admission. Thirteen parameters were identified as significantly different between stable and rebleeding aneurysms in the primary cohort. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that six parameters, including hypertension [hazard ratio (HR), 2.54; P = 0.044], bifurcation site (HR, 1.95; P = 0.013), irregular shape (HR, 4.22; P = 0.002), aspect ratio (HR, 12.91; P < 0.001), normalized wall shear stress average (HR, 0.16; P = 0.002), and oscillatory stress index (HR, 1.14; P < 0.001) were independent risk factors related to the rebleeding after admission. Two nomograms were established, the nomogram including clinical, morphological, and hemodynamic features (CMH nomogram) had the highest predicting accuracy (AUC, 0.92), followed by the nomogram including clinical and morphological features (CM nomogram; AUC, 0.83), ELAPSS score (AUC, 0.61), and PHASES score (AUC, 0.54). The calibration curve for the probability of rebleeding showed good agreement between prediction by nomograms and actual observation. In the validation cohort, the discrimination of the CMH nomogram was superior to the other models (AUC, 0.93 vs. 0.86, 0.71 and 0.48).

CONCLUSION

We presented two nomogram models, named CMH nomogram and CM nomogram, which could assist in identifying the RIAs with high risk of rebleeding.