BACKGROUND: DEFUSE 2 demonstrated that patients with magnetic resonance imaging mismatch had a favorable clinical response to tissue reperfusion assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. This study reports the endovascular results and correlates angiographic reperfusion with clinical and imaging outcomes. METHODS: Prospectively enrolled ischemic stroke patients underwent baseline magnetic resonance imaging and started endovascular therapy within 12 h of onset. Patients were classified as either target mismatch or no target mismatch using magnetic resonance imaging. The pre- and postprocedure angiogram was evaluated to determine thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores. Favorable clinical response was determined at day 30, and good functional outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale 0-2 at day 90. RESULTS: One-hundred patients had attempted endovascular treatment. At procedure end, 23% were thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 0-1, 31% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2A, 28% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B, and 18% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3. More favorable thrombolysis in cerebral infarction-reperfusion scores were associated with greater magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion (P<0·001). thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores correlated with 30-day favorable clinical response (P=0·041) and 90-day modified Rankin Scale 0-2 (P=0·008). These correlations were significant for target mismatch patients at 30 days (P=0·034) and 90 days (P=0·003). Infarct growth was strongly associated with poorer thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores in target mismatch patients (P<0·001). Patients with thrombolysis in cerebral infarctionnfarction 2A reperfusion had less magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion (P=0·004) and poorer clinical outcome at 90 days (P=0·01) compared with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B-3 patients. CONCLUSION: Thrombolysis in cerebral infarction reperfusion following endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke is highly correlated with magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion, infarct growth, and clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND: DEFUSE 2 demonstrated that patients with magnetic resonance imaging mismatch had a favorable clinical response to tissue reperfusion assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. This study reports the endovascular results and correlates angiographic reperfusion with clinical and imaging outcomes. METHODS: Prospectively enrolled ischemic strokepatients underwent baseline magnetic resonance imaging and started endovascular therapy within 12 h of onset. Patients were classified as either target mismatch or no target mismatch using magnetic resonance imaging. The pre- and postprocedure angiogram was evaluated to determine thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores. Favorable clinical response was determined at day 30, and good functional outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale 0-2 at day 90. RESULTS: One-hundred patients had attempted endovascular treatment. At procedure end, 23% were thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 0-1, 31% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2A, 28% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B, and 18% thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3. More favorable thrombolysis in cerebral infarction-reperfusion scores were associated with greater magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion (P<0·001). thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores correlated with 30-day favorable clinical response (P=0·041) and 90-day modified Rankin Scale 0-2 (P=0·008). These correlations were significant for target mismatch patients at 30 days (P=0·034) and 90 days (P=0·003). Infarct growth was strongly associated with poorer thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores in target mismatch patients (P<0·001). Patients with thrombolysis in cerebral infarctionnfarction 2A reperfusion had less magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion (P=0·004) and poorer clinical outcome at 90 days (P=0·01) compared with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B-3 patients. CONCLUSION:Thrombolysis in cerebral infarction reperfusion following endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke is highly correlated with magnetic resonance imaging reperfusion, infarct growth, and clinical outcome.
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Jun Lee; Soren Christensen; Matus Straka; Deidre A De Silva; Michael Mlynash; Bruce C Campbell; Roland Bammer; Jean-Marc Olivot; Patricia Desmond; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Matus Straka; Stephanie Kemp; Michael Mlynash; Lawrence R Wechsler; Tudor G Jovin; Michael J Wilder; Helmi L Lutsep; Todd J Czartoski; Richard A Bernstein; Cherylee W J Chang; Steven Warach; Franz Fazekas; Manabu Inoue; Aaryani Tipirneni; Scott A Hamilton; Greg Zaharchuk; Michael P Marks; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 44.182
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: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Carlo W Cereda; Michael Mlynash; Nishant K Mishra; Manabu Inoue; Stephanie Kemp; Søren Christensen; Matus Straka; Greg Zaharchuk; Michael P Marks; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dylan N Wolman; Fasco van Ommen; Elizabeth Tong; Frans Kauw; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Edwin Bennink; Hugo W A M de Jong; Lior Molvin; Max Wintermark; Jeremy J Heit Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 4.379