AbstractBackground and Purpose—
The ABC/2 method for calculating intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume has been well validated. However, the formula, derived from the volume of an ellipse, assumes the shape of ICH is elliptical. We sought to compare the agreement of the ABC/2 formula with other methods through retrospective analysis of a selection of the STICH II cohort (Early Surgery Versus Initial Conservative Treatment in Patients With Spontaneous Supratentorial Lobar Intracerebral Haematomas).Methods—
From 390 patients, 739 scans were selected from the STICH II image archive based on the availability of a CT scan compatible with OsiriX DICOM viewer. ICH volumes were calculated by the reference standard semiautomatic segmentation in OsiriX software and compared with calculated arithmetic methods (ABC/2, ABC/2.4, ABC/3, and 2/3SC) volumes. Volumes were compared by difference plots for specific groups: randomization ICH (n=374), 3- to 7-day postsurgical ICH (n=206), antithrombotic-associated ICH (n=79), irregular-shape ICH (n=703) and irregular-density ICH (n=650). Density and shape were measured by the Barras ordinal shape and density groups (1–5).Results—
The ABC/2.4 method had the closest agreement to the semiautomatic segmentation volume in all groups, except for the 3- to 7-day postsurgical ICH group where the ABC/3 method was superior.Conclusions—
Although the ABC/2 formula for calculating elliptical ICH is well validated, it must be used with caution in ICH scans where the elliptical shape of ICH is a false assumption. We validated the adjustment of the ABC/2.4 method in randomization, antithrombotic-associated, heterogeneous-density, and irregular-shape ICH.Clinical Trial Registration—
URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN22153967. Unique identifier: ISRCTN22153967.