M A Almekhlafi1, A Davalos2, A Bonafe3, R Chapot4, J Gralla5, V M Pereira6, M Goyal7. 1. From the Departments of Clinical Neurosciences (M.A.A.)Radiology (M.A.A., M.G.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaFaculty of Medicine (M.A.A.), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 2. Department of Neurology (A.D.), University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Neuroradiology (A.B.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellie-Guy de Chauliac, Montpellier, France. 4. Department of Neuroradiology (R.C.), Alfred Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (J.G.), Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Department of Neuroradiology (V.M.P.), University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Radiology (M.A.A., M.G.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaDepartment for Radiology (M.G.), Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. mgoyal@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Age and stroke severity are inversely correlated with the odds of favorable outcome after ischemic stroke. A previously proposed score for Stroke Prognostication Using Age and NIHSS Stroke Scale (SPAN) indicated that SPAN-100-positive patients (ie, age + NIHSS score = 100 or more) do not benefit from IV-tPA. If this finding holds true for endovascular therapy, this score can impact patient selection for such interventions. This study investigated whether a score combining age and NIHSS score can improve patients' selection for endovascular stroke therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPAN index was calculated for patients in the prospective Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization study: an international single-arm multicenter cohort for anterior circulation stroke treatment by using the Solitaire FR. The proportion with favorable outcome (90-day mRS score ≤2) was compared between SPAN-100-positive versus-negative patients. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients enrolled, 196 had baseline NIHSS scores. Fifteen (7.7%) patients were SPAN-100-positive. There was no difference in the rate of successful reperfusion (Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction 2b or 3) between SPAN-100-positive versus -negative groups (93.3% versus 82.8%, respectively; P = .3). Stroke SPAN-100-positive patients had a significantly lower proportion of favorable clinical outcomes (26.7% versus 60.8% in SPAN-100-negative, P = .01). In a multivariable analysis, SPAN-100-positive status was associated with lower odds of favorable outcome (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; P = .04). A higher baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score and a short onset to revascularization time also predicted favorable outcome in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly lower proportion of patients with a positive SPAN-100 achieved favorable outcome in this cohort. SPAN-100 was an independent predictor of favorable outcome after adjusting for time to treatment and the extent of preintervention tissue damage according to the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Age and stroke severity are inversely correlated with the odds of favorable outcome after ischemic stroke. A previously proposed score for Stroke Prognostication Using Age and NIHSS Stroke Scale (SPAN) indicated that SPAN-100-positive patients (ie, age + NIHSS score = 100 or more) do not benefit from IV-tPA. If this finding holds true for endovascular therapy, this score can impact patient selection for such interventions. This study investigated whether a score combining age and NIHSS score can improve patients' selection for endovascular stroke therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPAN index was calculated for patients in the prospective Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization study: an international single-arm multicenter cohort for anterior circulation stroke treatment by using the Solitaire FR. The proportion with favorable outcome (90-day mRS score ≤2) was compared between SPAN-100-positive versus-negative patients. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients enrolled, 196 had baseline NIHSS scores. Fifteen (7.7%) patients were SPAN-100-positive. There was no difference in the rate of successful reperfusion (Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction 2b or 3) between SPAN-100-positive versus -negative groups (93.3% versus 82.8%, respectively; P = .3). StrokeSPAN-100-positive patients had a significantly lower proportion of favorable clinical outcomes (26.7% versus 60.8% in SPAN-100-negative, P = .01). In a multivariable analysis, SPAN-100-positive status was associated with lower odds of favorable outcome (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; P = .04). A higher baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score and a short onset to revascularization time also predicted favorable outcome in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly lower proportion of patients with a positive SPAN-100 achieved favorable outcome in this cohort. SPAN-100 was an independent predictor of favorable outcome after adjusting for time to treatment and the extent of preintervention tissue damage according to the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score.
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: Jeffrey L Saver; Reza Jahan; Elad I Levy; Tudor G Jovin; Blaise Baxter; Raul G Nogueira; Wayne Clark; Ronald Budzik; Osama O Zaidat Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vitor M Pereira; Jan Gralla; Antoni Davalos; Alain Bonafé; Carlos Castaño; René Chapot; David S Liebeskind; Raul G Nogueira; Marcel Arnold; Roman Sztajzel; Thomas Liebig; Mayank Goyal; Michael Besselmann; Antonio Moreno; Alfredo Moreno; Gerhard Schroth Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Angelo António Silva Carneiro; João Tiago Lopes Rodrigues; José Pedro Rocha Pereira; José Viriato Alves; João Abel Marques Xavier Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Colin J Przybylowski; Dale Ding; Robert M Starke; Christopher R Durst; R Webster Crowley; Kenneth C Liu Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Arun Paul Amar; Abhay P Sagare; Zhen Zhao; Yaoming Wang; Amy R Nelson; John H Griffin; Berislav V Zlokovic Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: L A Slater; J M Coutinho; J Gralla; R G Nogueira; A Bonafé; A Dávalos; R Jahan; E Levy; B J Baxter; J L Saver; V M Pereira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Anne Broeg-Morvay; Pasquale Mordasini; Agnieszka Slezak; Kai Liesirova; Julia Meisterernst; Gerhard Schroth; Marcel Arnold; Simon Jung; Heinrich P Mattle; Jan Gralla; Urs Fischer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240