BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 has been regarded as a successful angiographic outcome, the definition or subclassification of TICI 2 has differed between the original (o-TICI) and modified TICI (m-TICI). We sought to compare interobserver variability for both scores and analyze the subgroups of the TICI 2. METHODS: Five readers interpreted angiographies independently using a 6-point scale as follows: grade 0, no antegrade flow; grade 1, flow past the initial occlusion without tissue reperfusion; grade 2, partial reperfusion in <50% of the affected territory; grade 3, partial reperfusion in 50% to 66%; grade 4, partial reperfusion in ≥ 67%; grade 5, complete perfusion. Readings using this scale were then converted into o-TICI and m-TICI score. Statistical analysis was performed according to TICI 2 subgroups. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was good for the o-TICI and m-TICI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). Our grade 3 (partial perfusion with 50% to 66%) occupied 19% of total readings, which would have been classified as grade 2a in o-TICI, but as 2b in m-TICI. The m-TICI was more likely to predict good clinical outcome than o-TICI (odds ratio, 2.01 versus 1.63, in reads with TICI 2b/3 versus 0/2a). CONCLUSIONS: Both TICI scales showed good agreement among readers. However, the variability in partial perfusion thresholds leads to different grading in ≈ 20% of cases and may result in significantly different rates of accurate outcome prediction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 has been regarded as a successful angiographic outcome, the definition or subclassification of TICI 2 has differed between the original (o-TICI) and modified TICI (m-TICI). We sought to compare interobserver variability for both scores and analyze the subgroups of the TICI 2. METHODS: Five readers interpreted angiographies independently using a 6-point scale as follows: grade 0, no antegrade flow; grade 1, flow past the initial occlusion without tissue reperfusion; grade 2, partial reperfusion in <50% of the affected territory; grade 3, partial reperfusion in 50% to 66%; grade 4, partial reperfusion in ≥ 67%; grade 5, complete perfusion. Readings using this scale were then converted into o-TICI and m-TICI score. Statistical analysis was performed according to TICI 2 subgroups. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was good for the o-TICI and m-TICI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). Our grade 3 (partial perfusion with 50% to 66%) occupied 19% of total readings, which would have been classified as grade 2a in o-TICI, but as 2b in m-TICI. The m-TICI was more likely to predict good clinical outcome than o-TICI (odds ratio, 2.01 versus 1.63, in reads with TICI 2b/3 versus 0/2a). CONCLUSIONS: Both TICI scales showed good agreement among readers. However, the variability in partial perfusion thresholds leads to different grading in ≈ 20% of cases and may result in significantly different rates of accurate outcome prediction.
Authors: M Bar; R Mikulik; T Jonszta; A Krajina; M Roubec; D Skoloudik; V Prochazka Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Helmi L Lutsep; Rishi Gupta; Tudor G Jovin; Gregory W Albers; Gary A Walker; David S Liebeskind; Wade S Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: K Imai; T Mori; H Izumoto; M Watanabe; T Kunieda; N Takabatake; S Yamamoto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 3.825
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 M Heiferman; N C Pecoraro; A W Wozniak; K C Ebersole; L M Jimenez; M R Reynolds; A J Ringer; J C Serrone Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Sachin Mishra; Jamsheed A Desai; Vivek Nambiar; Ondrej Volny; Ankur Goel; Muneer Eesa; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Mayank Goyal Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: C J Maurer; T Dobrocky; F Joachimski; U Neuberger; T Demerath; A Brehm; A Cianfoni; B Gory; A Berlis; J Gralla; M A Möhlenbruch; K A Blackham; M N Psychogios; P Zickler; S Fischer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 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: J H Kwak; L Zhao; J K Kim; S Park; D-G Lee; J H Shim; D H Lee; J S Kim; D C Suh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.825