C S Kidwell1, R Burgess, R Menon, S Warach, L L Latour. 1. Department of Neurology and Georgetown Stroke Center, 4000 Reservoir Road, NW, Building D, Suite 150, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. ck256@georgetown.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize a previously unreported form of CNS barrier disruption in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH): hyperacute injury marker (HARM). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of patients presenting with primary ICH, precontrast and postcontrast MRI scans obtained within 5 days of symptom onset were analyzed. The presence of CNS barrier disruption was defined by (1) perihematomal or intrahematomal enhancement visualized on postcontrast T1-weighted MRI or (2) HARM: sulcal or ventricular hyperintensity visualized on postcontrast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences (graded on a 5-point scale). RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 65 years, median NIH Stroke Scale score was 7, and mean ICH volume was 12.2 mL (range 0.3-46.9 mL). HARM was visualized in 85% of patients, and this was moderate to severe in 50%. In all cases, the sulcal enhancement was noncontiguous with the hematoma. Of those patients with postcontrast T1-weighted imaging, perihematomal or intrahematomal contrast enhancement was visualized in 75% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that HARM occurs in intracerebral hemorrhage and that it likely represents a second type of CNS barrier disruption distinct from parenchymal postcontrast T1-weighted enhancement. Similar to T1 enhancement, this phenomenon may serve as a clinically useful biomarker to test therapies aimed at stabilizing acute ICH and CNS barrier disruption. Future studies are needed to further define the time course and prognostic implications of this finding.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize a previously unreported form of CNS barrier disruption in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH): hyperacute injury marker (HARM). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of patients presenting with primary ICH, precontrast and postcontrast MRI scans obtained within 5 days of symptom onset were analyzed. The presence of CNS barrier disruption was defined by (1) perihematomal or intrahematomal enhancement visualized on postcontrast T1-weighted MRI or (2) HARM: sulcal or ventricular hyperintensity visualized on postcontrast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences (graded on a 5-point scale). RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 65 years, median NIH Stroke Scale score was 7, and mean ICH volume was 12.2 mL (range 0.3-46.9 mL). HARM was visualized in 85% of patients, and this was moderate to severe in 50%. In all cases, the sulcal enhancement was noncontiguous with the hematoma. Of those patients with postcontrast T1-weighted imaging, perihematomal or intrahematomal contrast enhancement was visualized in 75% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that HARM occurs in intracerebral hemorrhage and that it likely represents a second type of CNS barrier disruption distinct from parenchymal postcontrast T1-weighted enhancement. Similar to T1 enhancement, this phenomenon may serve as a clinically useful biomarker to test therapies aimed at stabilizing acute ICH and CNS barrier disruption. Future studies are needed to further define the time course and prognostic implications of this finding.
Authors: N Joan Abbott; Adjanie A K Patabendige; Diana E M Dolman; Siti R Yusof; David J Begley Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2009-08-05 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: J N Goldstein; L E Fazen; R Snider; K Schwab; S M Greenberg; E E Smith; M H Lev; J Rosand Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lawrence L Latour; Dong-Wha Kang; Mustapha A Ezzeddine; Julio A Chalela; Steven Warach Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Larry Latour; Jeffrey L Saver; Jeffry R Alger; Sidney Starkman; Gary Duckwiler; Reza Jahan; Fernando Vinuela; Dong-Wha Kang; Steven Warach Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2008-02-27 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: W M Freeze; D N Ter Weele; W M Palm; R W van Hooren; E I Hoff; J F A Jansen; H I L Jacobs; F R Verhey; W H Backes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Lisa Christine Turtzo; Neekita Jikaria; Martin R Cota; Joshua P Williford; Victoria Uche; Tara Davis; Judy MacLaren; Anita D Moses; Gunjan Parikh; Marcelo A Castro; Dzung L Pham; John A Butman; Lawrence L Latour Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2020-09-09
Authors: Adnan I Qureshi; Shahram Majidi; Waqas I Gilani; Yuko Y Palesch; Renee Martin; Jill Novitzke; Salvador Cruz-Flores; Asad Ehtisham; Joshua N Goldstein; Jawad F Kirmani; Haitham M Hussein; M Fareed K Suri; Nauman Tariq Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Vincent Degos; Erick M Westbroek; Michael T Lawton; J Claude Hemphill; Gregory J Del Zoppo; William L Young Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Victor González-Castro; Francesca M Chappell; Eleni Sakka; Stephen Makin; Paul A Armitage; William H Nailon; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Didem Aksoy; Roland Bammer; Michael Mlynash; Chitra Venkatasubramanian; Irina Eyngorn; Ryan W Snider; Sandeep N Gupta; Rashmi Narayana; Nancy Fischbein; Christine A C Wijman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 5.501