Acute @entity4806 neuroimaging: single-institution series as part of the XXXX project.

@entity1 @entity198 @entity548 @entity1276 @entity4806 @entity854 @entity7452
PURPOSE: Diagnosing @entity4806 is challenging because of varied clinical presentation, nonspecific neuroimaging features, and rare confirmation of causality. We reviewed acute neuroimaging of @entity1 with clinically suspected @entity198 to identify findings that may correlate with etiology and length of stay. METHODS: Imaging of 141 @entity1 with clinically suspected @entity198 as part of The @entity7452 Project from 2005 to 2012 at a single institution was reviewed to compare the extent of @entity854 to @entity1 age, gender, length of stay, and unknown, possible, or confirmed pathogen. Scan review was blinded and categorized by extent and distribution of abnormal findings. RESULTS: Abnormal findings were evident on 23% (22/94) of computed tomography and 50% (67/134) of magnetic resonance imaging studies in the acute setting. Twenty @entity1 with normal admission computed tomography had abnormal findings on magnetic resonance imaging performed within 2  days. Length of stay was significantly longer among @entity1 with abnormal acute magnetic resonance imaging (P  <  0.001) and correlated with increased complexity (Spearman rho  =  0.4, P  <  0.001) categorized as: no imaging abnormality, meningeal enhancement and/or focal nonenhancing lesion, multifocal lesions, confluent lesions, and lesions plus diffusion restriction, @entity548 , or @entity1276 . There was no correlation between neuroimaging findings and an identifiable pathogen (P  =  0.8). CONCLUSION: Abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings are more common than abnormal computed tomography findings in @entity4806 . Increasing complexity of magnetic resonance imaging findings correlated with disease severity as evidenced by longer length of stay, but were not specific for an identifiable pathogen using a standardized diagnostic @entity198 panel.
