Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 2283  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 295-299

Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and the conventional scores in predicting outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage patients


1 Department of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, King Fahad Medical College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Charu Mahajan
Department of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, Neurosciences Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_786_18

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score is a more comprehensive score used to assess eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration that was introduced to overcome the drawbacks of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score. Our aim was to assess which score best predicts mortality and poor outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) patients. Methods: This cohort study, prospectively evaluated the use of FOUR score to assess the mortality and outcome in aSAH patients during the period from November 2015 to November 2016. For each patient of aSAH, GCS, FOUR score, Hunt and Hess (HH) score and World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS) score were determined at the time of admission to neurosurgical intensive care unit. All patients were followed till 28 days post-SAH and their outcome were assessed by Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). We calculated the sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for each of these scores. We generated the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), quantified the accuracy by the area under curve (AUC), and also calculated their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: A total of 75 aSAH patients were enrolled for the study. The mortality was 24/75 (32%) with 23 in-hospital deaths. FOUR score was highly specific (86.27%) and sensitive (75%) for the prediction of mortality. However, for predicting 28-day outcome, WFNS and HH grade were most specific (92.5%), whereas FOUR and HH score was moderately specific (68.57%). Conclusion: FOUR score is among the most specific and moderately sensitive tool for prediction of mortality. However, WFNS and HH grade are more specific in predicting the 28-day outcome.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed713    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded123    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal