Benjamin N Groisser1, William A Copen2, Aneesh B Singhal3, Kelsi K Hirai1, Judith D Schaechter4. 1. MGH/HST Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, MA, USA Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. MGH/HST Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, MA, USA Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA judith@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognosis of long-term motor outcome of acute stroke patients with severe motor impairment is difficult to determine. OBJECTIVE: Our primary goal was to evaluate the prognostic value of corticospinal tract (CST) injury on motor outcome of the upper limb compared with motor impairment level and lesion volume. METHODS: In all, 10 acute stroke patients with moderately severe to severe motor impairment of the upper limb underwent diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and testing of upper limb strength and dexterity at acute, subacute, and chronic poststroke time points. A density-weighted CST atlas was constructed using DTI tractography data from normal participants. This CST atlas was applied, using a largely automated process, to DTI data from patients to quantify CST injury at each time point. Differences in axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD), and fractional anisotropy (FA) of the ipsilesional CST relative to the contralesional CST were measured. RESULTS: Acute loss in CST AD correlated most strongly and significantly with subacute and chronic strength and dexterity and remained significant after adjusting for acute motor impairment or lesion volume. Subacute loss in CST FA correlated most strongly with chronic dexterity, whereas subacute behavioral measures of limb strength correlated most strongly with chronic strength measures. CONCLUSIONS: Loss in acute CST AD and subacute CST FA are strong prognostic indicators of future motor functions of the upper limb for stroke patients with substantial initial motor impairment. DTI-derived measure of CST injury early after stroke may have utility in health care planning and in design of acute stroke clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Prognosis of long-term motor outcome of acute strokepatients with severe motor impairment is difficult to determine. OBJECTIVE: Our primary goal was to evaluate the prognostic value of corticospinal tract (CST) injury on motor outcome of the upper limb compared with motor impairment level and lesion volume. METHODS: In all, 10 acute strokepatients with moderately severe to severe motor impairment of the upper limb underwent diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and testing of upper limb strength and dexterity at acute, subacute, and chronic poststroke time points. A density-weighted CST atlas was constructed using DTI tractography data from normal participants. This CST atlas was applied, using a largely automated process, to DTI data from patients to quantify CST injury at each time point. Differences in axial diffusivity (AD), radial diffusivity (RD), and fractional anisotropy (FA) of the ipsilesional CST relative to the contralesional CST were measured. RESULTS:Acute loss in CST AD correlated most strongly and significantly with subacute and chronic strength and dexterity and remained significant after adjusting for acute motor impairment or lesion volume. Subacute loss in CST FA correlated most strongly with chronic dexterity, whereas subacute behavioral measures of limb strength correlated most strongly with chronic strength measures. CONCLUSIONS: Loss in acute CST AD and subacute CST FA are strong prognostic indicators of future motor functions of the upper limb for strokepatients with substantial initial motor impairment. DTI-derived measure of CST injury early after stroke may have utility in health care planning and in design of acute stroke clinical trials.
Authors: Josep Puig; Gerard Blasco; Gottfried Schlaug; Cathy M Stinear; Pepus Daunis-I-Estadella; Carles Biarnes; Jaume Figueras; Joaquín Serena; Maria Hernández-Pérez; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Mar Castellanos; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Götz Thomalla; Kambiz Nael; Max Wintermark; Salvador Pedraza Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: M V Spampinato; C Chan; J H Jensen; J A Helpern; L Bonilha; S A Kautz; P J Nietert; W Feng Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hongmei Wen; Mohamad J Alshikho; Yao Wang; Xun Luo; Ross Zafonte; Martha R Herbert; Qing Mei Wang Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Corin E Bonnett; Patrick Chabra; Sarah Roelle; Nicole Varnerin; David A Cunningham; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Svetlana Pundik; Adriana B Conforto; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Kelsi K Hirai; Benjamin N Groisser; William A Copen; Aneesh B Singhal; Judith D Schaechter Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.390