INTRODUCTION: Recently two classification methods based on the location and the extent of thrombosis detected with CT angiography have been introduced: the Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale (BASIS) and the clot burden score (CBS). We studied the performance of BASIS and CBS in predicting good clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 2 at 90 days) in an acute (< 3 h) stroke cohort treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy. METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent multimodal CT were analyzed. Binary logistic regression model was used to assess how BASIS, CBS, and cerebral blood volume (CBV) ASPECTS predict favorable clinical outcome. Diagnostic sensitivities and specificities were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Patients with low CBS and CBV ASPECTS scores and major strokes according to BASIS had significantly higher admission NIHSS scores, larger perfusion defects, and more often poor clinical outcome. In logistic regression analysis, CBV ASPECTS, CBS and BASIS were significantly associated with the clinical outcome. The performance of BASIS improved when patients with thrombosis of the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery were classified as having minor stroke (M1-BASIS). In the anterior circulation, the sum of CBS and CBV ASPECTS (CBSV) proved to be the most robust predictor of favorable outcome. CBV ASPECTS and CBS had high sensitivity but moderate to poor specificity while BASIS was only moderately sensitive and specific. CONCLUSION: CBS, BASIS, and CBV ASPECTS are statistically robust and sensitive but unspecific predictors of good clinical outcome. Two new derived imaging parameters, CBSV and M1-BASIS, share these properties and may have increased prognostic value.
INTRODUCTION: Recently two classification methods based on the location and the extent of thrombosis detected with CT angiography have been introduced: the Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale (BASIS) and the clot burden score (CBS). We studied the performance of BASIS and CBS in predicting good clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 2 at 90 days) in an acute (< 3 h) stroke cohort treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy. METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent multimodal CT were analyzed. Binary logistic regression model was used to assess how BASIS, CBS, and cerebral blood volume (CBV) ASPECTS predict favorable clinical outcome. Diagnostic sensitivities and specificities were calculated and compared. RESULTS:Patients with low CBS and CBV ASPECTS scores and major strokes according to BASIS had significantly higher admission NIHSS scores, larger perfusion defects, and more often poor clinical outcome. In logistic regression analysis, CBV ASPECTS, CBS and BASIS were significantly associated with the clinical outcome. The performance of BASIS improved when patients with thrombosis of the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery were classified as having minor stroke (M1-BASIS). In the anterior circulation, the sum of CBS and CBV ASPECTS (CBSV) proved to be the most robust predictor of favorable outcome. CBV ASPECTS and CBS had high sensitivity but moderate to poor specificity while BASIS was only moderately sensitive and specific. CONCLUSION: CBS, BASIS, and CBV ASPECTS are statistically robust and sensitive but unspecific predictors of good clinical outcome. Two new derived imaging parameters, CBSV and M1-BASIS, share these properties and may have increased prognostic value.
Authors: Volker Puetz; Imanuel Dzialowski; Michael D Hill; Nikolai Steffenhagen; Shelagh B Coutts; Christine O'Reilly; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Mark W Parsons; Elizabeth M Pepper; Virgil Chan; Sabbir Siddique; Siva Rajaratnam; Grant A Bateman; Christopher R Levi Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: David S Liebeskind; Nerses Sanossian; William H Yong; Sidney Starkman; Michael P Tsang; Antonio L Moya; David D Zheng; Anna M Abolian; Doojin Kim; Latisha K Ali; Samir H Shah; Amytis Towfighi; Bruce Ovbiagele; Chelsea S Kidwell; Satoshi Tateshima; Reza Jahan; Gary R Duckwiler; Fernando Viñuela; Noriko Salamon; J Pablo Villablanca; Harry V Vinters; Victor J Marder; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: I Y L Tan; A M Demchuk; J Hopyan; L Zhang; D Gladstone; K Wong; M Martin; S P Symons; A J Fox; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R I Aviv; J Mandelcorn; S Chakraborty; D Gladstone; S Malham; G Tomlinson; A J Fox; S Symons Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-10-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Wade S Smith; Jack W Tsao; Martha E Billings; S Claiborne Johnston; J Claude Hemphill; David C Bonovich; William P Dillon Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Italo Linfante; Rafael H Llinas; Magdy Selim; Claudia Chaves; Sandeep Kumar; Robert A Parker; Louis R Caplan; Gottfried Schlaug Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Niko Sillanpaa; Jukka T Saarinen; Harri Rusanen; Jari Hakomaki; Arto Lahteela; Heikki Numminen; Irina Elovaara; Prasun Dastidar; Seppo Soimakallio Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2011-02-17
Authors: N Sillanpää; J T Saarinen; H Rusanen; I Elovaara; P Dastidar; S Soimakallio Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K M Thierfelder; W H Sommer; B Ertl-Wagner; S E Beyer; F G Meinel; W G Kunz; G Buchholz; M F Reiser; H Janssen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Michael Knauth; Raya Bshara; Katharina Schregel; Ioannis Tsogkas; Ismini Papageorgiou; Ilko Maier; Jan Liman; Daniel Behme Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Michael Söderman; Francis Turjman; Philip M White; Søren Jacob Bakke; Salvatore Mangiafico; Rüdiger von Kummer; Mario Muto; Christophe Cognard; Jan Gralla Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: S Dehkharghani; R Bammer; M Straka; L S Albin; O Kass-Hout; J W Allen; S Rangaraju; D Qiu; M J Winningham; F Nahab Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Eilaghi; C D d'Esterre; T Y Lee; R Jakubovic; J Brooks; R T-K Liu; L Zhang; R H Swartz; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andreas M J Frölich; Sarah Lena Wolff; Marios N Psychogios; Ernst Klotz; Ramona Schramm; Katrin Wasser; Michael Knauth; Peter Schramm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.315