OBJECTIVE: We explored the relationship between the site of vascular occlusion and the response to endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke and also considered the impact of mismatch profile. METHODS: DEFUSE-2 was a prospective cohort study of patients treated with endovascular therapy. Patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) involvement were included in this substudy. Mismatch and reperfusion status was assessed on MRI. Favorable clinical response was defined as an improvement of at least 8 points on the NIH Stroke Scale. RESULTS: Reperfusion rates were comparable in both groups (61% for ICA and 59% for MCA). In the setting of reperfusion, percentages of favorable clinical response were similar between patients with stroke due to ICA (65%) and MCA (63%) occlusions. When reperfusion was not achieved, favorable outcomes were less frequent with obstructions of the ICA (9%) than the MCA (52%). Among target mismatch patients, the adjusted odds ratio for favorable clinical response associated with reperfusion was 39.7 (95% confidence interval 1.4-1,132.8) for ICA occlusions vs 5.1 (95% confidence interval 1.4-19.3) for MCA occlusions. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular reperfusion is associated with favorable clinical response regardless of the location of the arterial occlusion. This association is strongest for target mismatch patients with ICA occlusions. Target mismatch patients with either ICA or MCA occlusions appear to be good candidates for endovascular reperfusion therapy.
OBJECTIVE: We explored the relationship between the site of vascular occlusion and the response to endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke and also considered the impact of mismatch profile. METHODS: DEFUSE-2 was a prospective cohort study of patients treated with endovascular therapy. Patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) involvement were included in this substudy. Mismatch and reperfusion status was assessed on MRI. Favorable clinical response was defined as an improvement of at least 8 points on the NIH Stroke Scale. RESULTS: Reperfusion rates were comparable in both groups (61% for ICA and 59% for MCA). In the setting of reperfusion, percentages of favorable clinical response were similar between patients with stroke due to ICA (65%) and MCA (63%) occlusions. When reperfusion was not achieved, favorable outcomes were less frequent with obstructions of the ICA (9%) than the MCA (52%). Among target mismatch patients, the adjusted odds ratio for favorable clinical response associated with reperfusion was 39.7 (95% confidence interval 1.4-1,132.8) for ICA occlusions vs 5.1 (95% confidence interval 1.4-19.3) for MCA occlusions. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular reperfusion is associated with favorable clinical response regardless of the location of the arterial occlusion. This association is strongest for target mismatch patients with ICA occlusions. Target mismatch patients with either ICA or MCA occlusions appear to be good candidates for endovascular reperfusion therapy.
Authors: Maher Saqqur; Ken Uchino; Andrew M Demchuk; Carlos A Molina; Zsolt Garami; Sergio Calleja; Naveed Akhtar; Finton O Orouk; Abdul Salam; Ashfaq Shuaib; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Deidre A De Silva; Caspar Brekenfeld; Martin Ebinger; Søren Christensen; P Alan Barber; Kenneth S Butcher; Christopher R Levi; Mark W Parsons; Christopher F Bladin; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael P Marks; Jean-Marc Olivot; Stephanie Kemp; Maarten G Lansberg; Roland Bammer; Lawrence R Wechsler; Gregory W Albers; Vincent Thijs Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rishi Gupta; Nirav A Vora; Michael B Horowitz; Ashis H Tayal; Maxim D Hammer; Ken Uchino; Elad I Levy; Lawrence R Wechsler; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: K Barlinn; J Seibt; K Engellandt; J Gerber; V Puetz; J Kepplinger; O Wunderlich; L-P Pallesen; U Bodechtel; R Koch; R von Kummer; I Dzialowski Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: A D Horsch; J W Dankbaar; J M Niesten; T van Seeters; I C van der Schaaf; Y van der Graaf; W P Th M Mali; B K Velthuis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Ninad S Bhat; Sharon D Yeatts; Yuko Y Palesch; Joseph P Broderick; Gregory W Albers; Tze L Lai; Philip W Lavori Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Robin Lemmens; Scott A Hamilton; David S Liebeskind; Tom A Tomsick; Andrew M Demchuk; Raul G Nogueira; Michael P Marks; Reza Jahan; Jan Gralla; Albert J Yoo; Sharon D Yeatts; Yuko Y Palesch; Jeffrey L Saver; Vitor M Pereira; Joseph P Broderick; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Shadi Yaghi; Adam de Havenon; Tristan Honda; Jason D Hinman; Radoslav Raychev; Latisha K Sharma; Song Kim; Edward Feldmann; Jose G Romano; Shyam Prabhakaran; David S Liebeskind Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Mark Krongold; Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Andrew M Demchuk; Shelagh B Coutts; Richard Frayne; Armin Eilaghi Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.881