OBJECTIVE: Very low cerebral blood volume (VLCBV), diffusion, and hypoperfusion lesion volumes have been proposed as predictors of hemorrhagic transformation following stroke thrombolysis. We aimed to compare these parameters, validate VLCBV in an independent cohort using DEFUSE study data, and investigate the interaction of VLCBV with regional reperfusion. METHODS: The EPITHET and DEFUSE studies obtained diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients 3 to 6 hours from onset of ischemic stroke. EPITHET randomized patients to tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or placebo, and all DEFUSE patients received tPA. VLCBV was defined as cerebral blood volume<2.5th percentile of brain contralateral to the infarct. Parenchymal hematoma (PH) was defined using European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study criteria. Reperfusion was assessed using subacute perfusion MRI coregistered to baseline imaging. RESULTS: In DEFUSE, 69 patients were analyzed, including 9 who developed PH. The >2 ml VLCBV threshold defined in EPITHET predicted PH with 100% sensitivity, 72% specificity, 35% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. Pooling EPITHET and DEFUSE (163 patients, including 23 with PH), regression models using VLCBV (p<0.001) and tPA (p=0.02) predicted PH independent of clinical factors better than models using diffusion or time to maximum>8 seconds lesion volumes. Excluding VLCBV in regions without reperfusion improved specificity from 61 to 78% in the pooled analysis. INTERPRETATION: VLCBV predicts PH after stroke thrombolysis and appears to be a more powerful predictor than baseline diffusion or hypoperfusion lesion volumes. Reperfusion of regions of VLCBV is strongly associated with post-thrombolysis PH. VLCBV may be clinically useful to identify patients at significant risk of hemorrhage following reperfusion.
OBJECTIVE: Very low cerebral blood volume (VLCBV), diffusion, and hypoperfusion lesion volumes have been proposed as predictors of hemorrhagic transformation following stroke thrombolysis. We aimed to compare these parameters, validate VLCBV in an independent cohort using DEFUSE study data, and investigate the interaction of VLCBV with regional reperfusion. METHODS: The EPITHET and DEFUSE studies obtained diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients 3 to 6 hours from onset of ischemic stroke. EPITHET randomized patients to tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or placebo, and all DEFUSE patients received tPA. VLCBV was defined as cerebral blood volume<2.5th percentile of brain contralateral to the infarct. Parenchymal hematoma (PH) was defined using European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study criteria. Reperfusion was assessed using subacute perfusion MRI coregistered to baseline imaging. RESULTS: In DEFUSE, 69 patients were analyzed, including 9 who developed PH. The >2 ml VLCBV threshold defined in EPITHET predicted PH with 100% sensitivity, 72% specificity, 35% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. Pooling EPITHET and DEFUSE (163 patients, including 23 with PH), regression models using VLCBV (p<0.001) and tPA (p=0.02) predicted PH independent of clinical factors better than models using diffusion or time to maximum>8 seconds lesion volumes. Excluding VLCBV in regions without reperfusion improved specificity from 61 to 78% in the pooled analysis. INTERPRETATION:VLCBV predicts PH after stroke thrombolysis and appears to be a more powerful predictor than baseline diffusion or hypoperfusion lesion volumes. Reperfusion of regions of VLCBV is strongly associated with post-thrombolysis PH. VLCBV may be clinically useful to identify patients at significant risk of hemorrhage following reperfusion.
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Christian Remmele; Thomas Kucinski; Michael Rosenkranz; Götz Thomalla; Cornelius Weiller; Hermann Zeumer; Joachim Röther Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2005-01-06 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Mark Parsons; Neil Spratt; Andrew Bivard; Bruce Campbell; Kong Chung; Ferdinand Miteff; Bill O'Brien; Christopher Bladin; Patrick McElduff; Chris Allen; Grant Bateman; Geoffrey Donnan; Stephen Davis; Christopher Levi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Tanne; Scott E Kasner; Andrew M Demchuk; Nira Koren-Morag; Sandra Hanson; Martin Grond; Steven R Levine Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; R von Kummer; A Davalos; D Meier; V Larrue; E Bluhmki; S Davis; G Donnan; D Schneider; E Diez-Tejedor; P Trouillas Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Carlos A Molina; José Alvarez-Sabín; Joan Montaner; Sonia Abilleira; Juan F Arenillas; Pilar Coscojuela; Francisco Romero; Agusti Codina Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; D Toni; E Lesaffre; R von Kummer; G Boysen; E Bluhmki; G Höxter; M H Mahagne Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wolfgang G Kunz; Wieland H Sommer; Christopher Höhne; Matthias P Fabritius; Felix Schuler; Franziska Dorn; Ahmed E Othman; Felix G Meinel; Louisa von Baumgarten; Maximilian F Reiser; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Kolja M Thierfelder Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Nishant K Mishra; Søren Christensen; Anke Wouters; Bruce C V Campbell; Matus Straka; Michael Mlynash; Stephanie Kemp; Carlo W Cereda; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S Tsetsou; M Amiguet; A Eskandari; R Meuli; P Maeder; B Jiang; M Wintermark; P Michel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 2.804
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
Authors: Won Hyung A Ryu; Michael B Avery; Navjit Dharampal; Isabel E Allen; Steven W Hetts Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 5.836