BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The concept of stroke MRI mismatch based on qualitative evaluation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) has been applied in clinical practice for several years. The benefit of MRI in providing pathological evidence of ischemia before thrombolytic treatment has been demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of the qualitative method and compare it with quantitative mismatch measurement in thrombolytic-treated patients. METHODS: Patients (n=70) were selected from the Lesion Evolution of Stroke and Ischemic On Neuroimaging (LESION) database if they: (1) were treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator; (2) had a pretreatment MRI with evaluable DWI and PWI; and (3) had acute ischemic lesion volume >10 mL on DWI as determined by core imaging laboratory measurements. Quantitative mismatch was defined as a difference of >50 mL between abnormal mean transit time and DWI volumes. Sample characteristics and postdischarge modified Rankin Scale for the positive mismatch patients were compared between the subgroups identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and thrombolytic outcomes (sex, age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, mismatch volume, and modified Rankin Scale) did not differ for mismatch patients identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods. Qualitative mismatch selection among neurologists had a high sensitivity (0.82), specificity (0.80), accuracy (0.81), and positive predictive value (0.88) compared with quantitative measurements. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that qualitative evaluation of mismatch identified the same thrombolytic-treated patients compared with retrospective quantitative mismatch measurements.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The concept of stroke MRI mismatch based on qualitative evaluation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) has been applied in clinical practice for several years. The benefit of MRI in providing pathological evidence of ischemia before thrombolytic treatment has been demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of the qualitative method and compare it with quantitative mismatch measurement in thrombolytic-treated patients. METHODS:Patients (n=70) were selected from the Lesion Evolution of Stroke and Ischemic On Neuroimaging (LESION) database if they: (1) were treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator; (2) had a pretreatment MRI with evaluable DWI and PWI; and (3) had acute ischemic lesion volume >10 mL on DWI as determined by core imaging laboratory measurements. Quantitative mismatch was defined as a difference of >50 mL between abnormal mean transit time and DWI volumes. Sample characteristics and postdischarge modified Rankin Scale for the positive mismatch patients were compared between the subgroups identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods. RESULTS:Patient characteristics and thrombolytic outcomes (sex, age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, mismatch volume, and modified Rankin Scale) did not differ for mismatch patients identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods. Qualitative mismatch selection among neurologists had a high sensitivity (0.82), specificity (0.80), accuracy (0.81), and positive predictive value (0.88) compared with quantitative measurements. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that qualitative evaluation of mismatch identified the same thrombolytic-treated patients compared with retrospective quantitative mismatch measurements.
Authors: K S Butcher; M Parsons; L MacGregor; P A Barber; J Chalk; C Bladin; C Levi; T Kimber; D Schultz; J Fink; B Tress; G Donnan; S Davis Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Anthony J Furlan; Dirk Eyding; Gregory W Albers; Yasir Al-Rawi; Kennedy R Lees; Howard A Rowley; Christian Sachara; Mariola Soehngen; Steven Warach; Werner Hacke Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P D Schellinger; O Jansen; J B Fiebach; O Pohlers; H Ryssel; S Heiland; T Steiner; W Hacke; K Sartor Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Werner Hacke; Greg Albers; Yasir Al-Rawi; Julien Bogousslavsky; Antonio Davalos; Michael Eliasziw; Michael Fischer; Anthony Furlan; Markku Kaste; Kennedy R Lees; Mariola Soehngen; Steven Warach Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M A Jacobs; R A Knight; H Soltanian-Zadeh; Z G Zheng; A V Goussev; D J Peck; J P Windham; M Chopp Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: O Wu; W J Koroshetz; L Ostergaard; F S Buonanno; W A Copen; R G Gonzalez; G Rordorf; B R Rosen; L H Schwamm; R M Weisskoff; A G Sorensen Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Werner Hacke; Anthony J Furlan; Yasir Al-Rawi; Antoni Davalos; Jochen B Fiebach; Franz Gruber; Markku Kaste; Leslie J Lipka; Salvador Pedraza; Peter A Ringleb; Howard A Rowley; Dietmar Schneider; Lee H Schwamm; Joaquin Serena Leal; Mariola Söhngen; Phil A Teal; Karin Wilhelm-Ogunbiyi; Max Wintermark; Steven Warach Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: A D Horsch; J W Dankbaar; J M Niesten; T van Seeters; I C van der Schaaf; Y van der Graaf; W P Th M Mali; B K Velthuis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Luby; J Hong; J G Merino; J K Lynch; A W Hsia; A Magadán; S S Song; L L Latour; S Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Adrienne N Dula; Marie Luby; Ben T King; Sunil A Sheth; Alejandro Magadán; Lisa A Davis; Gretchel A Gealogo; José G Merino; Amie W Hsia; Lawrence L Latour; Steven J Warach Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Amie W Hsia; Marie L Luby; Richard Leigh; John K Lynch; Zurab Nadareishvili; Richard T Benson; Chandni Kalaria; Shannon P Burton; Larry Latour Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 9.910