BACKGROUND: The mismatch between perfusion and diffusion lesions on magnetic resonance perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI)/diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) may help identify patients for thrombolysis. Evidence underlying this hypothesis was assessed. METHODS: All papers describing magnetic resonance PWI/DWI findings in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, and their functional and/or radiological outcome at 1 month, with or without thrombolysis were systematically reviewed. RESULTS: 11 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among these, there were 5 different mismatch definitions and at least 7 different PWI methods. Only 3 papers including 61 patients with and 18 without mismatch provided data on mismatch, outcome and influence of thrombolysis. Mismatch (v no mismatch) without thrombolysis was associated with a non-significant twofold increase in the odds of infarct expansion (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 14.1), which did not change with thrombolysis (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.9). Half of the patients without mismatch also had infarct growth (with or without thrombolysis). No data were available on functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised definitions of mismatch and perfusion are needed. Infarct growth may occur even in the absence of mismatch. Currently, data available on mismatch are too limited to guide thrombolysis in routine practice. More data are needed from studies including patients with and without mismatch, and randomised treatment allocation, to determine the role of mismatch.
BACKGROUND: The mismatch between perfusion and diffusion lesions on magnetic resonance perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI)/diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) may help identify patients for thrombolysis. Evidence underlying this hypothesis was assessed. METHODS: All papers describing magnetic resonance PWI/DWI findings in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, and their functional and/or radiological outcome at 1 month, with or without thrombolysis were systematically reviewed. RESULTS: 11 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among these, there were 5 different mismatch definitions and at least 7 different PWI methods. Only 3 papers including 61 patients with and 18 without mismatch provided data on mismatch, outcome and influence of thrombolysis. Mismatch (v no mismatch) without thrombolysis was associated with a non-significant twofold increase in the odds of infarct expansion (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 14.1), which did not change with thrombolysis (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.9). Half of the patients without mismatch also had infarct growth (with or without thrombolysis). No data were available on functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised definitions of mismatch and perfusion are needed. Infarct growth may occur even in the absence of mismatch. Currently, data available on mismatch are too limited to guide thrombolysis in routine practice. More data are needed from studies including patients with and without mismatch, and randomised treatment allocation, to determine the role of mismatch.
Authors: L Røhl; J Geday; L Østergaard; C Z Simonsen; P Vestergaard-Poulsen; G Andersen; D Le Bihan; C Gyldensted Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: G Schlaug; A Benfield; A E Baird; B Siewert; K O Lövblad; R A Parker; R R Edelman; S Warach Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-10-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: P D Schellinger; J B Fiebach; O Jansen; P A Ringleb; A Mohr; T Steiner; S Heiland; S Schwab; O Pohlers; H Ryssel; B Orakcioglu; K Sartor; W Hacke Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mark W Parsons; P Alan Barber; Jonathon Chalk; David G Darby; Stephen Rose; Patricia M Desmond; Richard P Gerraty; Brian M Tress; Peter M Wright; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Mascha Foth; Thomas Kucinski; Renée Knab; Michael von Bezold; Cornelius Weiller; Hermann Zeumer; Joachim Röther Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ludy C Shih; Jeffrey L Saver; Jeffry R Alger; Sidney Starkman; Megan C Leary; Fernando Vinuela; Gary Duckwiler; Y Pierre Gobin; Reza Jahan; J Pablo Villablanca; Paul M Vespa; Chelsea S Kidwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Vincent N Thijs; Diederik M Somford; Roland Bammer; Wim Robberecht; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-12-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P Alan Barber; Mark W Parsons; Patricia M Desmond; Donald A Bennett; Geoffrey A Donnan; Brian M Tress; Stephen M Davis Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Julio A Chalela; Dong-Wha Kang; Marie Luby; Mustapha Ezzeddine; Lawrence L Latour; Jason W Todd; Billy Dunn; Steven Warach Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: J Röther; P D Schellinger; A Gass; M Siebler; A Villringer; J B Fiebach; J Fiehler; O Jansen; T Kucinski; V Schoder; K Szabo; G J Junge-Hülsing; M Hennerici; H Zeumer; K Sartor; C Weiller; W Hacke Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Paul A Armitage; C S Rivers; B Karaszewski; R G R Thomas; G K Lymer; Z Morris; J M Wardlaw Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael Mlynash; Vincent N Thijs; Stephanie Kemp; Maarten G Lansberg; Lawrence Wechsler; Gottfried Schlaug; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 7.914