BACKGROUND: Recanalization and angiographic reperfusion are key elements to successful endovascular and interventional acute ischemic stroke (AIS) therapy. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA), the only established revascularization therapy approved by the US Food & Drug Administration for AIS, may be less effective for large artery occlusion. Thus, there is enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization therapies, which likely provide higher recanalization rates, and trials are ongoing to determine clinical efficacy and compare various methods. It is anticipated that clinical efficacy will be well correlated with revascularization of viable tissue in a timely manner. METHOD: Reporting, interpretation, and comparison of the various revascularization grading methods require agreement on measurement criteria, reproducibility, ease of use, and correlation with clinical outcome. These parameters were reviewed by performing a Medline literature search from 1965 to 2011. This review critically evaluates current revascularization grading systems. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The most commonly used revascularization grading methods in AIS interventional therapy trials are the thrombolysis in cerebral ischemia (TICI, pronounced "tissy") and thrombolysis in myocardial ischemia (TIMI) scores. Until further technical and imaging advances can incorporate real-time reliable perfusion studies in the angio-suite to delineate regional perfusion more accurately, the TICI grading system is the best defined and most widely used scheme. Other grading systems may be used for research and correlation purposes. A new scale that combines primary site occlusion, lesion location, and perfusion should be explored in the future.
BACKGROUND: Recanalization and angiographic reperfusion are key elements to successful endovascular and interventional acute ischemic stroke (AIS) therapy. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA), the only established revascularization therapy approved by the US Food & Drug Administration for AIS, may be less effective for large artery occlusion. Thus, there is enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization therapies, which likely provide higher recanalization rates, and trials are ongoing to determine clinical efficacy and compare various methods. It is anticipated that clinical efficacy will be well correlated with revascularization of viable tissue in a timely manner. METHOD: Reporting, interpretation, and comparison of the various revascularization grading methods require agreement on measurement criteria, reproducibility, ease of use, and correlation with clinical outcome. These parameters were reviewed by performing a Medline literature search from 1965 to 2011. This review critically evaluates current revascularization grading systems. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The most commonly used revascularization grading methods in AIS interventional therapy trials are the thrombolysis in cerebral ischemia (TICI, pronounced "tissy") and thrombolysis in myocardial ischemia (TIMI) scores. Until further technical and imaging advances can incorporate real-time reliable perfusion studies in the angio-suite to delineate regional perfusion more accurately, the TICI grading system is the best defined and most widely used scheme. Other grading systems may be used for research and correlation purposes. A new scale that combines primary site occlusion, lesion location, and perfusion should be explored in the future.
Authors: A Furlan; R Higashida; L Wechsler; M Gent; H Rowley; C Kase; M Pessin; A Ahuja; F Callahan; W M Clark; F Silver; F Rivera Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E Mori; Y Yoneda; M Tabuchi; T Yoshida; S Ohkawa; Y Ohsumi; K Kitano; A Tsutsumi; A Yamadori Journal: Neurology Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Oh Young Bang; Jeffrey L Saver; Suk Jae Kim; Gyeong-Moon Kim; Chin-Sang Chung; Bruce Ovbiagele; Kwang Ho Lee; David S Liebeskind Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J H Chesebro; G Knatterud; R Roberts; J Borer; L S Cohen; J Dalen; H T Dodge; C K Francis; D Hillis; P Ludbrook Journal: Circulation Date: 1987-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Randall T Higashida; Anthony J Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: D Sacks; B Baxter; B C V Campbell; J S Carpenter; C Cognard; D Dippel; M Eesa; U Fischer; K Hausegger; J A Hirsch; M S Hussain; O Jansen; M V Jayaraman; A A Khalessi; B W Kluck; S Lavine; P M Meyers; S Ramee; D A Rüfenacht; C M Schirmer; D Vorwerk Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael P Marks; Maarten G Lansberg; Michael Mlynash; Stephanie Kemp; Ryan McTaggart; Greg Zaharchuk; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: S Rudilosso; C Laredo; C Vivancos; X Urra; L Llull; A Renú; V Obach; Y Zhao; J L Moreno; A Lopez-Rueda; S Amaro; Á Chamorro Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Georgios Tsivgoulis; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Peter D Schellinger; Martin Köhrmann; Panayiotis Varelas; Georgios Magoufis; Maurizio Paciaroni; Valeria Caso; Anne W Alexandrov; Edip Gurol; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Kyle M Fargen; Aquilla S Turk; J Mocco; David S Liebeskind; Donald Frei; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 5.836