BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early prediction of motor outcome is of interest in stroke management. We aimed to determine whether lesion location at DTT is predictive of motor outcome after acute stroke and whether this information improves the predictive accuracy of the clinical scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 60 consecutive patients within 12 hours of middle cerebral artery stroke onset. We used DTT to evaluate CST involvement in the motor cortex and premotor cortex, centrum semiovale, corona radiata, and PLIC and in combinations of these regions at admission, at day 3, and at day 30. Severity of limb weakness was assessed by using the motor subindex scores of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b). We calculated volumes of infarct and fractional anisotropy values in the CST of the pons. RESULTS: Acute damage to the PLIC was the best predictor associated with poor motor outcome, axonal damage, and clinical severity at admission (P < .001). There was no significant correlation between acute infarct volume and motor outcome at day 90 (P = .176, r = 0.485). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of acute CST involvement at the level of the PLIC for motor outcome at day 90 were 73.7%, 100%, 100%, and 89.1%, respectively. In the acute stage, DTT predicted motor outcome at day 90 better than the clinical scores (R(2) = 75.50, F = 80.09, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the acute setting, DTT is promising for stroke mapping to predict motor outcome. Acute CST damage at the level of the PLIC is a significant predictor of unfavorable motor outcome.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early prediction of motor outcome is of interest in stroke management. We aimed to determine whether lesion location at DTT is predictive of motor outcome after acute stroke and whether this information improves the predictive accuracy of the clinical scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 60 consecutive patients within 12 hours of middle cerebral artery stroke onset. We used DTT to evaluate CST involvement in the motor cortex and premotor cortex, centrum semiovale, corona radiata, and PLIC and in combinations of these regions at admission, at day 3, and at day 30. Severity of limb weakness was assessed by using the motor subindex scores of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b). We calculated volumes of infarct and fractional anisotropy values in the CST of the pons. RESULTS: Acute damage to the PLIC was the best predictor associated with poor motor outcome, axonal damage, and clinical severity at admission (P < .001). There was no significant correlation between acute infarct volume and motor outcome at day 90 (P = .176, r = 0.485). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of acute CST involvement at the level of the PLIC for motor outcome at day 90 were 73.7%, 100%, 100%, and 89.1%, respectively. In the acute stage, DTT predicted motor outcome at day 90 better than the clinical scores (R(2) = 75.50, F = 80.09, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the acute setting, DTT is promising for stroke mapping to predict motor outcome. Acute CST damage at the level of the PLIC is a significant predictor of unfavorable motor outcome.
Authors: Tom Skyhoj Olsen; Peter Langhorne; Hans Christoph Diener; Michael Hennerici; Jose Ferro; Johani Sivenius; Nils Gunnar Wahlgren; Philip Bath Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Annette A van Kuijk; Jaco W Pasman; Henk T Hendricks; Machiel J Zwarts; Alexander C H Geurts Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Josep Puig; S Pedraza; G Blasco; J Daunis-I-Estadella; A Prats; F Prados; I Boada; M Castellanos; J Sánchez-González; S Remollo; G Laguillo; A M Quiles; E Gómez; J Serena Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Yin-Liang Lin; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Manshi Li; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; John Lee; Stephen Jones; Ken Sakaie; Xiaofeng Wang; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Brittany R Howell; Jodi Godfrey; David A Gutman; Vasiliki Michopoulos; Xiaodong Zhang; Govind Nair; Xiaoping Hu; Mark E Wilson; Mar M Sanchez Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Vahid Eslami; Pouya Tahsili-Fahadan; Lucia Rivera-Lara; Dheeraj Gandhi; Hasan Ali; Adrian Parry-Jones; Lilli S Nelson; Richard E Thompson; Saman Nekoobakht-Tak; Rachel Dlugash; Nichol McBee; Isaam Awad; Daniel F Hanley; Wendy C Ziai Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Josep Puig; Gerard Blasco; Gottfried Schlaug; Cathy M Stinear; Pepus Daunis-I-Estadella; Carles Biarnes; Jaume Figueras; Joaquín Serena; Maria Hernández-Pérez; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Mar Castellanos; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Götz Thomalla; Kambiz Nael; Max Wintermark; Salvador Pedraza Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Ying Zhou; Ruiting Zhang; Sheng Zhang; Shenqiang Yan; Ze Wang; Bruce C V Campbell; David S Liebeskind; Min Lou Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jessica M Cassidy; Anirudh Wodeyar; Jennifer Wu; Kiranjot Kaur; Ashley K Masuda; Ramesh Srinivasan; Steven C Cramer Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Wuwei Feng; Jasmine Wang; Pratik Y Chhatbar; Christopher Doughty; Douglas Landsittel; Vasileios-Arsenios Lioutas; Steven A Kautz; Gottfried Schlaug Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 10.422