BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial recanalization therapy (IAT) is increasingly used for acute stroke. Despite high rates of recanalization, the outcome is variable. We attempted to identify predictors of outcome that will enable better patient selection for IAT. METHODS: All patients who underwent IAT at the University of Texas Houston Stroke Center were reviewed. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale score 4 to 6 on hospital discharge. Findings were validated in an independent data set of 175 patients from the University of California at Los Angeles Stroke Center. RESULTS: One hundred ninety patients were identified. Mean age was 62 years and median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 0.18. Recanalization rate was 75%, symptomatic hemorrhage rate was 6%, and poor outcome rate was 66%. Variables associated with poor outcome were: age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, admission glucose, diabetes, heart disease, previous stroke, and the absence of mismatch on the pretreatment MRI. Logistic regression identified 3 variables independently associated with poor outcome: age (P=0.049; OR, 1.028), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (P=0.013; OR, 1.084), and admission glucose (P=0.031; OR, 1.011). Using these data, we devised the Houston IAT score: 1 point for age >75 years; 1 for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >18, and 1 point for glucose >150 mg/dL (range, 0 to 3 mg/dL). The percentage of poor outcome by Houston IAT score was: score of 0, 44%; 1, 67%; 2, 97%; and 3, 100%. Recanalization rates were similar across the scores (P=0.4). Applying Houston IAT to the external cohort showed comparable trends in outcome and nearly identical rates in the Houston IAT therapy 3 tier. CONCLUSIONS: The Houston IAT score estimates the chances of poor outcome after IAT, even with recanalization. It may be useful in comparing cohorts of patients and when assessing the results of clinical trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial recanalization therapy (IAT) is increasingly used for acute stroke. Despite high rates of recanalization, the outcome is variable. We attempted to identify predictors of outcome that will enable better patient selection for IAT. METHODS: All patients who underwent IAT at the University of Texas Houston Stroke Center were reviewed. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale score 4 to 6 on hospital discharge. Findings were validated in an independent data set of 175 patients from the University of California at Los Angeles Stroke Center. RESULTS: One hundred ninety patients were identified. Mean age was 62 years and median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 0.18. Recanalization rate was 75%, symptomatic hemorrhage rate was 6%, and poor outcome rate was 66%. Variables associated with poor outcome were: age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, admission glucose, diabetes, heart disease, previous stroke, and the absence of mismatch on the pretreatment MRI. Logistic regression identified 3 variables independently associated with poor outcome: age (P=0.049; OR, 1.028), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (P=0.013; OR, 1.084), and admission glucose (P=0.031; OR, 1.011). Using these data, we devised the Houston IAT score: 1 point for age >75 years; 1 for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >18, and 1 point for glucose >150 mg/dL (range, 0 to 3 mg/dL). The percentage of poor outcome by Houston IAT score was: score of 0, 44%; 1, 67%; 2, 97%; and 3, 100%. Recanalization rates were similar across the scores (P=0.4). Applying Houston IAT to the external cohort showed comparable trends in outcome and nearly identical rates in the Houston IAT therapy 3 tier. CONCLUSIONS: The Houston IAT score estimates the chances of poor outcome after IAT, even with recanalization. It may be useful in comparing cohorts of patients and when assessing the results of clinical trials.
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver; Chelsea S Kidwell; Y Pierre Gobin; Helmi L Lutsep; Gary M Nesbit; Thomas Grobelny; Marilyn M Rymer; Isaac E Silverman; Randall T Higashida; Ronald F Budzik; Michael P Marks Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lawrence R Wechsler; Robin Roberts; Anthony J Furlan; Randall T Higashida; William Dillon; Heidi Roberts; Howard A Rowley; L Creed Pettigrew; Alfred S Callahan; Askiel Bruno; Pierre Fayad; Wade S Smith; Carolyn M Firszt; Gregory A Schulz Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Fiorelli; S Bastianello; R von Kummer; G J del Zoppo; V Larrue; E Lesaffre; A P Ringleb; S Lorenzano; C Manelfe; L Bozzao Journal: Stroke Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Elizabeth A Noser; Hashem M Shaltoni; Christiana E Hall; Andrei V Alexandrov; Zsolt Garami; Edwin D Cacayorin; Joon K Song; James C Grotta; Morgan S Campbell Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-12-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael D Hill; Howard A Rowley; Felix Adler; Michael Eliasziw; Anthony Furlan; Randall T Higashida; Lawrence R Wechsler; Heidi C Roberts; William P Dillon; Nancy J Fischbein; Carolyn M Firszt; Gregory A Schulz; Alastair M Buchan Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Randall T Higashida; Anthony J Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: José Alvarez-Sabín; Carlos A Molina; Marc Ribó; Juan F Arenillas; Joan Montaner; Rafael Huertas; Esteban Santamarina; Marta Rubiera Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A Bose; H Henkes; K Alfke; W Reith; T E Mayer; A Berlis; V Branca; S Po Sit Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: John T P Liggins; Albert J Yoo; Nishant K Mishra; Hayley M Wheeler; Matus Straka; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Zeshan A Chaudhry; Stephanie Kemp; Michael Mlynash; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-11-10 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Alexander C Flint; Sean P Cullen; Vivek A Rao; Bonnie S Faigeles; Vitor M Pereira; Elad I Levy; Tudor G Jovin; David S Liebeskind; Raul G Nogueira; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: H Raoult; M V Lassalle; B Parat; C Rousseau; F Eugène; S Vannier; S Evain; A Le Bras; T Ronziere; J C Ferre; J Y Gauvrit; B Laviolle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Vishal N Patel; Rishi Gupta; Christopher M Horn; Tommy T Thomas; Raul G Nogueira Journal: Curr Treat Options Neurol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.598