BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR perfusion CBF values can distinguish hypoperfused penumbral tissue likely to infarct from that which is likely to recover. Our aim was to determine if CBF thresholds for tissue infarction depend on the timing of recanalization in patients with acute stroke treated with IAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with acute proximal anterior circulation strokes underwent DWI and PWI before IAT. rCBF was obtained in the following areas: 1) C with abnormal DWI, reduced CBF, follow-up infarction; 2) PI with normal DWI, reduced CBF, follow-up infarction and 3) PNI with normal DWI, reduced CBF, normal follow-up. rCBF in tissue reperfused at <6 hours (early recanalizers), in tissue reperfused at >6 hours (late RC), and in NRC was compared. RESULTS: For C, mean rCBF was 0.13 (SEM, 0.002), 0.29 (0.007), and 0.21 (0.004) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001, for all comparisons). For PI, mean rCBF was 0.34 (0.006), 0.38 (0.008), and 0.39 (0.005) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001 for early-versus-late recanalizers and versus nonrecanalizers; P > .05 for late recanalizers versus nonrecanalizers). For PNI, the mean rCBF was 0.38 (0.002), 0.48 (0.003), and 0.48 (0.004) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001 for early-versus-late recanalizers and nonrecanalizers; P > .05 for late recanalizers versus nonrecanalizers). ROC analyzis demonstrated optimal rCBF thresholds for tissue infarction of 0.27 (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 87%), 0.44 (sensitivity, 77%; specificity, 75%), and 0.41 (sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CBF thresholds for tissue infarction in patients with acute stroke are lower in tissue that is reperfused at earlier time points. This information may be important in selecting patients who might benefit from reperfusion therapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR perfusion CBF values can distinguish hypoperfused penumbral tissue likely to infarct from that which is likely to recover. Our aim was to determine if CBF thresholds for tissue infarction depend on the timing of recanalization in patients with acute stroke treated with IAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with acute proximal anterior circulation strokes underwent DWI and PWI before IAT. rCBF was obtained in the following areas: 1) C with abnormal DWI, reduced CBF, follow-up infarction; 2) PI with normal DWI, reduced CBF, follow-up infarction and 3) PNI with normal DWI, reduced CBF, normal follow-up. rCBF in tissue reperfused at <6 hours (early recanalizers), in tissue reperfused at >6 hours (late RC), and in NRC was compared. RESULTS: For C, mean rCBF was 0.13 (SEM, 0.002), 0.29 (0.007), and 0.21 (0.004) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001, for all comparisons). For PI, mean rCBF was 0.34 (0.006), 0.38 (0.008), and 0.39 (0.005) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001 for early-versus-late recanalizers and versus nonrecanalizers; P > .05 for late recanalizers versus nonrecanalizers). For PNI, the mean rCBF was 0.38 (0.002), 0.48 (0.003), and 0.48 (0.004) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively (P < .001 for early-versus-late recanalizers and nonrecanalizers; P > .05 for late recanalizers versus nonrecanalizers). ROC analyzis demonstrated optimal rCBF thresholds for tissue infarction of 0.27 (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 87%), 0.44 (sensitivity, 77%; specificity, 75%), and 0.41 (sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%) for early recanalizers, late recanalizers, and nonrecanalizers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CBF thresholds for tissue infarction in patients with acute stroke are lower in tissue that is reperfused at earlier time points. This information may be important in selecting patients who might benefit from reperfusion therapy.
Authors: R von Kummer; K L Allen; R Holle; L Bozzao; S Bastianello; C Manelfe; E Bluhmki; P Ringleb; D H Meier; W Hacke Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Arnold; K Nedeltchev; L Remonda; U Fischer; C Brekenfeld; B Keserue; G Schroth; H P Mattle Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Michael S Bristow; Jessica E Simon; Robert A Brown; Michael Eliasziw; Michael D Hill; Shelagh B Coutts; Richard Frayne; Andrew M Demchuk; J Ross Mitchell Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Shuji Arakawa; Peter M Wright; Masatoshi Koga; Thanh G Phan; David C Reutens; Indra Lim; Marveyles R Gunawan; Henry Ma; Nilupul Perera; John Ly; Jorge Zavala; Gregory Fitt; Geoffery A Donnan Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P A Barber; D G Darby; P M Desmond; Q Yang; R P Gerraty; D Jolley; G A Donnan; B M Tress; S M Davis Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Tudor G Jovin; Howard Yonas; James M Gebel; Emanuel Kanal; Yue Fang Chang; Stephen Z Grahovac; Steven Goldstein; Lawrence R Wechsler Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-09-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Pamela W Schaefer; Yelda Ozsunar; Julian He; Leena M Hamberg; George J Hunter; A Gregory Sorensen; Walter J Koroshetz; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kevin N Sheth; John B Terry; Raul G Nogueira; Anat Horev; Thanh N Nguyen; Albert K Fong; Dheeraj Gandhi; Shyam Prabhakaran; Dolora Wisco; Brenda A Glenn; Ashis H Tayal; Bryan Ludwig; Muhammad Shazam Hussain; Tudor G Jovin; Paul F Clemmons; Carolyn Cronin; David S Liebeskind; Melissa Tian; Rishi Gupta Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Jordi Borst; Henk A Marquering; Ludo F M Beenen; Olvert A Berkhemer; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Alan J Riordan; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: William A Copen; Albert J Yoo; Natalia S Rost; Lívia T Morais; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto González; Ona Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240