BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial therapy (IAT) promotes recanalization of large artery occlusions in acute ischemic stroke. Despite high recanalization rates, poor clinical outcomes are common. We attempted to optimize a score that combines clinical and imaging variables to more accurately predict poor outcome after IAT in anterior circulation occlusions. METHODS: Patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing IAT at University of Texas (UT) Houston for large artery occlusions (middle cerebral artery or internal carotid artery) were reviewed. Independent predictors of poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale, 4-6) were studied. External validation was performed on IAT-treated patients at Emory University. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were identified at UT Houston. Independent predictors of poor outcome (P≤0.2) were identified as score variables using sensitivity analysis and logistic regression. Houston Intra-Arterial Therapy 2 (HIAT2) score ranges 0 to 10: age (≤59=0, 60-79=2, ≥80 years=4), glucose (<150=0, ≥150=1), National Institute Health Stroke Scale (≤10=0, 11-20=1, ≥21=2), the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (8-10=0, ≤7=3). Patients with HIAT2≥5 were more likely to have poor outcomes at discharge (odds ratio, 6.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.75-15.02; P<0.001). After adjusting for reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score≥2b) and time from symptom onset to recanalization, HIAT2≥5 remained an independent predictor of poor outcome (odds ratio, 5.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.96-17.64; P=0.02). Results from the cohort of Emory (198 patients) were consistent; patients with HIAT2 score≥5 had 6× greater odds of poor outcome at discharge and at 90 days. HIAT2 outperformed other previously published predictive scores. CONCLUSIONS: The HIAT2 score, which combines clinical and imaging variables, performed better than all previous scores in predicting poor outcome after IAT for anterior circulation large artery occlusions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intra-arterial therapy (IAT) promotes recanalization of large artery occlusions in acute ischemic stroke. Despite high recanalization rates, poor clinical outcomes are common. We attempted to optimize a score that combines clinical and imaging variables to more accurately predict poor outcome after IAT in anterior circulation occlusions. METHODS:Patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing IAT at University of Texas (UT) Houston for large artery occlusions (middle cerebral artery or internal carotid artery) were reviewed. Independent predictors of poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale, 4-6) were studied. External validation was performed on IAT-treated patients at Emory University. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were identified at UT Houston. Independent predictors of poor outcome (P≤0.2) were identified as score variables using sensitivity analysis and logistic regression. Houston Intra-Arterial Therapy 2 (HIAT2) score ranges 0 to 10: age (≤59=0, 60-79=2, ≥80 years=4), glucose (<150=0, ≥150=1), National Institute Health Stroke Scale (≤10=0, 11-20=1, ≥21=2), the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (8-10=0, ≤7=3). Patients with HIAT2≥5 were more likely to have poor outcomes at discharge (odds ratio, 6.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.75-15.02; P<0.001). After adjusting for reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score≥2b) and time from symptom onset to recanalization, HIAT2≥5 remained an independent predictor of poor outcome (odds ratio, 5.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.96-17.64; P=0.02). Results from the cohort of Emory (198 patients) were consistent; patients with HIAT2 score≥5 had 6× greater odds of poor outcome at discharge and at 90 days. HIAT2 outperformed other previously published predictive scores. CONCLUSIONS: The HIAT2 score, which combines clinical and imaging variables, performed better than all previous scores in predicting poor outcome after IAT for anterior circulation large artery occlusions.
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: José Alvarez-Sabín; Carlos A Molina; Joan Montaner; Juan F Arenillas; Rafael Huertas; Marc Ribo; Agusti Codina; Manuel Quintana Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: D Kim; G A Ford; C S Kidwell; S Starkman; F Vinuela; G R Duckwiler; R Jahan; J L Saver Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael D Hill; Howard A Rowley; Felix Adler; Michael Eliasziw; Anthony Furlan; Randall T Higashida; Lawrence R Wechsler; Heidi C Roberts; William P Dillon; Nancy J Fischbein; Carolyn M Firszt; Gregory A Schulz; Alastair M Buchan Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Shelagh B Coutts; Andrew M Demchuk; Philip A Barber; William Y Hu; Jessica E Simon; Alastair M Buchan; Michael D Hill Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-08 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Marcel Arnold; Gerhard Schroth; Krassen Nedeltchev; Thomas Loher; Luca Remonda; Frank Stepper; Matthias Sturzenegger; Heinrich P Mattle Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Richard Leigh; Osama O Zaidat; Muhammad F Suri; Gwendolyn Lynch; Sophia Sundararajan; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Robert Tarr; Warren Selman; Dennis M D Landis; Jose I Suarez Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: King Chung Ho; William Speier; Suzie El-Saden; David S Liebeskind; Jeffery L Saver; Alex A T Bui; Corey W Arnold Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2014-11-14
Authors: Thoralf Thamm; Jia Guo; Jarrett Rosenberg; Tie Liang; Michael P Marks; Soren Christensen; Huy M Do; Stephanie M Kemp; Emma Adair; Irina Eyngorn; Michael Mlynash; Tudor G Jovin; Bart P Keogh; Hui J Chen; Maarten G Lansberg; Gregory W Albers; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alexander C Flint; Sean P Cullen; Vivek A Rao; Bonnie S Faigeles; Vitor M Pereira; Elad I Levy; Tudor G Jovin; David S Liebeskind; Raul G Nogueira; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: H Raoult; M V Lassalle; B Parat; C Rousseau; F Eugène; S Vannier; S Evain; A Le Bras; T Ronziere; J C Ferre; J Y Gauvrit; B Laviolle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amelia K Boehme; Pawan V Rawal; Michael J Lyerly; Karen C Albright; Reza Bavarsad Shahripour; Paola Palazzo; Niren Kapoor; Mohammad Alvi; J Thomas Houston; Mark R Harrigan; Luis Cava; April Sisson; Anne W Alexandrov; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-08-10 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Alexander C Flint; Bin Xiang; Rishi Gupta; Raul G Nogueira; Helmi L Lutsep; Tudor G Jovin; Gregory W Albers; David S Liebeskind; Nerses Sanossian; Wade S Smith Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: V K Sundaram; J Goldstein; D Wheelwright; A Aggarwal; P S Pawha; A Doshi; J T Fifi; R De Leacy; J Mocco; J Puig; K Nael Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David S Liebeskind; Reza Jahan; Raul G Nogueira; Tudor G Jovin; Helmi L Lutsep; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Zhong-Song Shi; David S Liebeskind; Bin Xiang; Sijian Grace Ge; Lei Feng; Gregory W Albers; Ronald Budzik; Thomas Devlin; Rishi Gupta; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Monika Killer-Oberpfalzer; Helmi L Lutsep; Juan Macho; Raul G Nogueira; Marilyn Rymer; Wade S Smith; Nils Wahlgren; Gary R Duckwiler Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914