Computed tomography angiography in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis


Abstract

Background: Differentiating cerebral aneurysm–related hemorrhage from purely traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with head trauma is crucial yet challenging in emergency settings. This distinction directly influences clinical priorities, resource allocation, and the urgency of intervention. This study assessed the accuracy of neurosurgeons’ clinical judgment in identifying aneurysm-related hemorrhage in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and contextualized these findings through a meta-analysis of the literature.

Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with severe head and neck trauma (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 3) and intracranial hemorrhage who presented to a single trauma center between June 2021 and May 2023. Neurosurgeons determined the need for computed tomography angiography (CTA) based on clinical suspicion. To understand the basis for these decisions, demographic data, clinical presentations, and initial noncontrast computed tomography (CT) findings were analyzed in patients who underwent CTA and those who did not. Additionally, a systematic literature search and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the prevalence and management of aneurysms in this population.

Results: Of 932 eligible patients, 49 (5.3%) underwent CTA. These patients had lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores, higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS), and more frequent subarachnoid hemorrhage, parenchymal hemorrhage, subdural hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, skull fractures, and facial bone fractures than those who did not undergo CTA. Among the CTA group, four patients (8.2%) had a cerebral aneurysm; none required emergent neurosurgical intervention. Clinical and imaging characteristics did not significantly differ between patients with and without aneurysms. The meta-analysis, which included our cohort and three additional studies (totaling 3,431 patients), showed a pooled aneurysm detection rate of 8.3% among the 664 patients who underwent CTA. However, only 11 patients (1.7%) had aneurysm-related hemorrhage requiring neurosurgical intervention.

Conclusions: CTA is essential for detecting aneurysms. However, clinical presentation and initial CT findings alone are insufficient to reliably identify trauma patients whose hemorrhage is aneurysm-related. Routine CTA for all patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage may not alter acute management and could delay time-sensitive interventions for other injuries. Integrating our findings with meta-analysis evidence supports a more selective CTA approach, guided by refined clinical and imaging criteria, to prioritize urgent trauma care while accurately identifying the small subset of patients who truly require vascular evaluation.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].