BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hyperintense vessels (HVs) have been observed in fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging of patients with acute ischemic stroke and been linked to slow flow in collateral arterial circulation. Given the potential importance of HV, we used a large, multicenter data set of patients with stroke to clarify which clinical and imaging factors play a role in HV. METHODS: We analyzed data of 516 patients from the previously published PRE-FLAIR study (PREdictive value of FLAIR and DWI for the identification of acute ischemic stroke patients≤3 and ≤4.5 hours of symptom onset-a multicenter study) study. Patients were studied by MRI within 12 hours of symptom onset. HV were defined as hyperintensities in fluid-attenuated inversion recovery corresponding to the typical course of a blood vessel that was not considered the proximal, occluded main artery ipsilateral to the diffusion restriction. Presence of HV was rated by 2 observers and related to clinical and imaging findings. RESULTS: Presence of HV was identified in 240 of all 516 patients (47%). Patients with HV showed larger initial ischemic lesion volumes (median, 12.3 versus 4.9 mL; P<0.001) and a more severe clinical impairment (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 10.5 versus 6; P<0.001). In 198 patients with MR angiography, HVs were found in 80% of patients with vessel occlusion and in 17% without vessel occlusion. In a multivariable logistic regression model, vessel occlusion was associated with HV (OR, 21.7%; 95% CI, 9.6-49.9; P<0.001). HV detected vessel occlusion with a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.90) and sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: HVs are a common finding associated with proximal arterial occlusions and more severe strokes. HVs predict arterial occlusion with high diagnostic accuracy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hyperintense vessels (HVs) have been observed in fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging of patients with acute ischemic stroke and been linked to slow flow in collateral arterial circulation. Given the potential importance of HV, we used a large, multicenter data set of patients with stroke to clarify which clinical and imaging factors play a role in HV. METHODS: We analyzed data of 516 patients from the previously published PRE-FLAIR study (PREdictive value of FLAIR and DWI for the identification of acute ischemic strokepatients≤3 and ≤4.5 hours of symptom onset-a multicenter study) study. Patients were studied by MRI within 12 hours of symptom onset. HV were defined as hyperintensities in fluid-attenuated inversion recovery corresponding to the typical course of a blood vessel that was not considered the proximal, occluded main artery ipsilateral to the diffusion restriction. Presence of HV was rated by 2 observers and related to clinical and imaging findings. RESULTS: Presence of HV was identified in 240 of all 516 patients (47%). Patients with HV showed larger initial ischemic lesion volumes (median, 12.3 versus 4.9 mL; P<0.001) and a more severe clinical impairment (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 10.5 versus 6; P<0.001). In 198 patients with MR angiography, HVs were found in 80% of patients with vessel occlusion and in 17% without vessel occlusion. In a multivariable logistic regression model, vessel occlusion was associated with HV (OR, 21.7%; 95% CI, 9.6-49.9; P<0.001). HV detected vessel occlusion with a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.90) and sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: HVs are a common finding associated with proximal arterial occlusions and more severe strokes. HVs predict arterial occlusion with high diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Peter D Schellinger; Julio A Chalela; Dong-Wha Kang; Lawrence L Latour; Steven Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Götz Thomalla; Bastian Cheng; Martin Ebinger; Qing Hao; Thomas Tourdias; Ona Wu; Jong S Kim; Lorenz Breuer; Oliver C Singer; Steven Warach; Soren Christensen; Andras Treszl; Nils D Forkert; Ivana Galinovic; Michael Rosenkranz; Tobias Engelhorn; Martin Köhrmann; Matthias Endres; Dong-Wha Kang; Vincent Dousset; A Gregory Sorensen; David S Liebeskind; Jochen B Fiebach; Jens Fiehler; Christian Gerloff Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Mark W Parsons; Christopher Levi; Kenneth S Butcher; Andre Peeters; P Alan Barber; Christopher Bladin; Deidre A De Silva; Graham Byrnes; Jonathan B Chalk; John N Fink; Thomas E Kimber; David Schultz; Peter J Hand; Judith Frayne; Graeme Hankey; Keith Muir; Richard Gerraty; Brian M Tress; Patricia M Desmond Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Thomas Tourdias; Vincent Dousset; Igor Sibon; Eric Pele; Patrice Menegon; Julien Asselineau; Chahin Pachai; François Rouanet; Philip Robinson; Geneviève Chene; Jean Marc Orgogozo Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N Sanossian; J L Saver; J R Alger; D Kim; G R Duckwiler; R Jahan; F Vinuela; B Ovbiagele; D S Liebeskind Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Benjamin Hotter; Sandra Pittl; Martin Ebinger; Gabriele Oepen; Kati Jegzentis; Kohsuke Kudo; Michal Rozanski; Wolf U Schmidt; Peter Brunecker; Chao Xu; Peter Martus; Matthias Endres; Gerhard J Jungehülsing; Arno Villringer; Jochen B Fiebach Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: A Kufner; I Galinovic; V Ambrosi; C H Nolte; M Endres; J B Fiebach; M Ebinger Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Gawlitza; U Quäschling; C Hobohm; J Otto; P Voigt; K-T Hoffmann; D Lobsien Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dezhi Liu; Fabien Scalzo; Neal M Rao; Jason D Hinman; Doojin Kim; Latisha K Ali; Jeffrey L Saver; Wen Sun; Qiliang Dai; Xinfeng Liu; David S Liebeskind Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 7.914