BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We evaluate associations between the severity of magnetic resonance perfusion-weighted imaging abnormalities, as assessed by the hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR), on infarct progression and functional outcome in the Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution Study 2 (DEFUSE 2). METHODS: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and perfusion-weighted imaging lesion volumes were determined with the RAPID software program. HIR was defined as the proportion of TMax >6 s lesion volume with a Tmax >10 s delay and was dichotomized based on its median value (0.4) into low versus high subgroups as well as quartiles. Final infarct volumes were assessed at day 5. Initial infarct growth velocity was calculated as the baseline diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) lesion volume divided by the delay from symptom onset to baseline magnetic resonance imaging. Total Infarct growth was determined by the difference between final infarct and baseline DWI volumes. Collateral flow was assessed on conventional angiography and dichotomized into good and poor flow. Good functional outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale ≤2 at 90 days. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included; baseline DWI, perfusion-weighted imaging, and final infarct volumes increased with HIR quartiles (P<0.01). A high HIR predicted poor collaterals with an area under the curve of 0.73. Initial infarct growth velocity and total infarct growth were greater among patients with a high HIR (P<0.001). After adjustment for age, DWI volume, and reperfusion, a low HIR was associated with good functional outcome: odds ratio=4.4 (95% CI, 1.3-14.3); P=0.014. CONCLUSIONS: HIR can be easily assessed on automatically processed perfusion maps and predicts the rate of collateral flow, infarct growth, and clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We evaluate associations between the severity of magnetic resonance perfusion-weighted imaging abnormalities, as assessed by the hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR), on infarct progression and functional outcome in the Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution Study 2 (DEFUSE 2). METHODS: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and perfusion-weighted imaging lesion volumes were determined with the RAPID software program. HIR was defined as the proportion of TMax >6 s lesion volume with a Tmax >10 s delay and was dichotomized based on its median value (0.4) into low versus high subgroups as well as quartiles. Final infarct volumes were assessed at day 5. Initial infarct growth velocity was calculated as the baseline diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) lesion volume divided by the delay from symptom onset to baseline magnetic resonance imaging. Total Infarct growth was determined by the difference between final infarct and baseline DWI volumes. Collateral flow was assessed on conventional angiography and dichotomized into good and poor flow. Good functional outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale ≤2 at 90 days. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included; baseline DWI, perfusion-weighted imaging, and final infarct volumes increased with HIR quartiles (P<0.01). A high HIR predicted poor collaterals with an area under the curve of 0.73. Initial infarct growth velocity and total infarct growth were greater among patients with a high HIR (P<0.001). After adjustment for age, DWI volume, and reperfusion, a low HIR was associated with good functional outcome: odds ratio=4.4 (95% CI, 1.3-14.3); P=0.014. CONCLUSIONS: HIR can be easily assessed on automatically processed perfusion maps and predicts the rate of collateral flow, infarct growth, and clinical outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
brain infarction; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion imaging
Authors: Fernando Calamante; Søren Christensen; Patricia M Desmond; Leif Ostergaard; Stephen M Davis; Alan Connelly Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Pooja Khatri; Joddi Neff; Joseph P Broderick; Jane C Khoury; Janice Carrozzella; Thomas Tomsick Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael Mlynash; Maarten G Lansberg; Deidre A De Silva; Jun Lee; Soren Christensen; Matus Straka; Bruce C V Campbell; Roland Bammer; Jean-Marc Olivot; Patricia Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J V Guadagno; P S Jones; F I Aigbirhio; D Wang; T D Fryer; D J Day; N Antoun; I Nimmo-Smith; E A Warburton; J C Baron Journal: Brain Date: 2008-08-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael Mlynash; Vincent N Thijs; Stephanie Kemp; Maarten G Lansberg; Lawrence Wechsler; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J-M Olivot; M Mlynash; G Zaharchuk; M Straka; R Bammer; N Schwartz; M G Lansberg; M E Moseley; G W Albers Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Masashi Takasawa; P Simon Jones; Joseph V Guadagno; Soren Christensen; Tim D Fryer; Sally Harding; Jonathan H Gillard; Guy B Williams; Franklin I Aigbirhio; Elizabeth A Warburton; Leif Østergaard; Jean-Claude Baron Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Anke Wouters; Patrick Dupont; Erich B Ringelstein; Bo Norrving; Angel Chamorro; Martin Grond; Rico Laage; Armin Schneider; Guido Wilms; Götz Thomalla; Robin Lemmens; Vincent N Thijs Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Juan F Arenillas; Elisa Cortijo; Pablo García-Bermejo; Elad I Levy; Reza Jahan; David Liebeskind; Mayank Goyal; Jeffrey L Saver; Gregory W Albers Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Hayley M Wheeler; Michael Mlynash; Manabu Inoue; Aaryani Tipirnini; John Liggins; Roland Bammer; Maarten G Lansberg; Stephanie Kemp; Greg Zaharchuk; Matus Straka; Gregory W Albers Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Amrou Sarraj; Michael Mlynash; Sean I Savitz; Jeremy J Heit; Maarten G Lansberg; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: K Nael; A Doshi; R De Leacy; J Puig; M Castellanos; J Bederson; T P Naidich; J Mocco; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.825