BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The perfusion-diffusion mismatch (PDM) model has been proposed as a tool to select acute stroke patients who are most likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy. The clinical-diffusion mismatch (CDM) model is an alternative method that is technically less challenging because it does not require perfusion-weighted imaging. This study is an evaluation of these 2 models in the DEFUSE dataset. METHODS: DEFUSE is an open-label multicenter study in which acute stroke patients were treated with intravenous tPA between 3 and 6 hours after symptoms onset and an MRI was obtained before and 3 to 6 hours after treatment. Presence of PDM and CDM was determined for each patient. RESULTS: Based on conventional predefined mismatch criteria, PDM was present in 54% of the DEFUSE population and CDM in 62%. There was no agreement beyond chance between the 2 mismatch models (kappa 0.07). The presence of PDM was associated with an increased chance of favorable clinical response after reperfusion (OR, 5.4; P=0.039). Reperfusion was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of favorable clinical response in patients with CDM (OR, 2.2; P=0.34). Using optimized mismatch criteria, determined retrospectively based on DEFUSE data, the OR for favorable clinical response was 70 (P=0.001) for PDM and 5.1 (P=0.066) for CDM. CONCLUSIONS: The PDM model appears to be more accurate than the CDM model for selecting patients who are likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy in the 3- to 6-hour time window.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The perfusion-diffusion mismatch (PDM) model has been proposed as a tool to select acute strokepatients who are most likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy. The clinical-diffusion mismatch (CDM) model is an alternative method that is technically less challenging because it does not require perfusion-weighted imaging. This study is an evaluation of these 2 models in the DEFUSE dataset. METHODS: DEFUSE is an open-label multicenter study in which acute strokepatients were treated with intravenous tPA between 3 and 6 hours after symptoms onset and an MRI was obtained before and 3 to 6 hours after treatment. Presence of PDM and CDM was determined for each patient. RESULTS: Based on conventional predefined mismatch criteria, PDM was present in 54% of the DEFUSE population and CDM in 62%. There was no agreement beyond chance between the 2 mismatch models (kappa 0.07). The presence of PDM was associated with an increased chance of favorable clinical response after reperfusion (OR, 5.4; P=0.039). Reperfusion was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of favorable clinical response in patients with CDM (OR, 2.2; P=0.34). Using optimized mismatch criteria, determined retrospectively based on DEFUSE data, the OR for favorable clinical response was 70 (P=0.001) for PDM and 5.1 (P=0.066) for CDM. CONCLUSIONS: The PDM model appears to be more accurate than the CDM model for selecting patients who are likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy in the 3- to 6-hour time window.
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: N Nighoghossian; M Hermier; P Adeleine; L Derex; J F Dugor; F Philippeau; H Ylmaz; J Honnorat; P Dardel; Y Berthezène; J C Froment; P Trouillas Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02 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: Werner Hacke; Geoffrey Donnan; Cesare Fieschi; Markku Kaste; Rüdiger von Kummer; Joseph P Broderick; Thomas Brott; Michael Frankel; James C Grotta; E Clarke Haley; Thomas Kwiatkowski; Steven R Levine; Chris Lewandowski; Mei Lu; Patrick Lyden; John R Marler; Suresh Patel; Barbara C Tilley; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Manfred Wilhelm; Scott Hamilton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Dávalos; M Blanco; S Pedraza; R Leira; M Castellanos; J M Pumar; Y Silva; J Serena; J Castillo Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-06-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J B Andre; G Zaharchuk; N J Fischbein; M Augustin; S Skare; M Straka; J Rosenberg; M G Lansberg; S Kemp; C A C Wijman; G W Albers; N E Schwartz; R Bammer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Archana Purushotham; Soren Christensen; Patricia M Desmond; Yoshinari Nagakane; Mark W Parsons; Maarten G Lansberg; Michael Mlynash; Matus Straka; Deidre A De Silva; Jean-Marc Olivot; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Archana Purushotham; Bruce C V Campbell; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; Jean-Marc Olivot; Roland Bammer; Stephanie M Kemp; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 5.266