BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution 2 (DEFUSE 2) study has shown that clinical response to endovascular reperfusion differs between patients with and without perfusion-diffusion (perfusion-weighted imaging-diffusion-weighted imaging, PWI-DWI) mismatch: patients with mismatch have a favorable clinical response to reperfusion, whereas patients without mismatch do not. This study examined whether alternative mismatch criteria can also differentiate patients according to their response to reperfusion. METHODS: Patients from the DEFUSE 2 study were categorized according to vessel occlusion on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and DWI lesion volume criteria (MRA-DWI mismatch) and symptom severity and DWI criteria (clinical-DWI mismatch). Favorable clinical response was defined as an improvement of ≥8 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) by day 30 or an NIHSS score of ≤1 at day 30. We assessed, for each set of criteria, whether the association between reperfusion and favorable clinical response differed according to mismatch status. RESULTS: A differential response to reperfusion was observed between patients with and without MRA-DWI mismatch defined as an internal carotid artery or M1 occlusion and a DWI lesion<50 mL. Reperfusion was associated with good functional outcome in patients who met these MRA-DWI mismatch criteria (odds ratio [OR], 8.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-31.3), whereas no association was observed in patients who did not meet these criteria (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.08-3.1; P for difference between the odds, 0.01). No differential response to reperfusion was observed with other variations of the MRA-DWI or clinical-DWI mismatch criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The MRA-DWI mismatch is a promising alternative to DEFUSE 2's PWI-DWI mismatch for patient selection in endovascular stroke trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution 2 (DEFUSE 2) study has shown that clinical response to endovascular reperfusion differs between patients with and without perfusion-diffusion (perfusion-weighted imaging-diffusion-weighted imaging, PWI-DWI) mismatch: patients with mismatch have a favorable clinical response to reperfusion, whereas patients without mismatch do not. This study examined whether alternative mismatch criteria can also differentiate patients according to their response to reperfusion. METHODS:Patients from the DEFUSE 2 study were categorized according to vessel occlusion on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and DWI lesion volume criteria (MRA-DWI mismatch) and symptom severity and DWI criteria (clinical-DWI mismatch). Favorable clinical response was defined as an improvement of ≥8 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) by day 30 or an NIHSS score of ≤1 at day 30. We assessed, for each set of criteria, whether the association between reperfusion and favorable clinical response differed according to mismatch status. RESULTS: A differential response to reperfusion was observed between patients with and without MRA-DWI mismatch defined as an internal carotid artery or M1 occlusion and a DWI lesion<50 mL. Reperfusion was associated with good functional outcome in patients who met these MRA-DWI mismatch criteria (odds ratio [OR], 8.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-31.3), whereas no association was observed in patients who did not meet these criteria (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.08-3.1; P for difference between the odds, 0.01). No differential response to reperfusion was observed with other variations of the MRA-DWI or clinical-DWI mismatch criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The MRA-DWI mismatch is a promising alternative to DEFUSE 2's PWI-DWI mismatch for patient selection in endovascular stroke trials.
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: 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: Kennedy R Lees; Erich Bluhmki; Rüdiger von Kummer; Thomas G Brott; Danilo Toni; James C Grotta; Gregory W Albers; Markku Kaste; John R Marler; Scott A Hamilton; Barbara C Tilley; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Werner Hacke; Kathryn Allen; Jochen Mau; Dieter Meier; Gregory del Zoppo; D A De Silva; K S Butcher; M W Parsons; P A Barber; C Levi; C Bladin; G Byrnes Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Albert J Yoo; Luis A Verduzco; Pamela W Schaefer; Joshua A Hirsch; James D Rabinov; R Gilberto González Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Werner Hacke; Anthony J Furlan; Yasir Al-Rawi; Antoni Davalos; Jochen B Fiebach; Franz Gruber; Markku Kaste; Leslie J Lipka; Salvador Pedraza; Peter A Ringleb; Howard A Rowley; Dietmar Schneider; Lee H Schwamm; Joaquin Serena Leal; Mariola Söhngen; Phil A Teal; Karin Wilhelm-Ogunbiyi; Max Wintermark; Steven Warach Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245