Sunil A Sheth1, Bryan Yoo2, Jeffrey L Saver1, Sidney Starkman3, Latisha K Ali1, Doojin Kim1, Nestor R Gonzalez4, Reza Jahan5, Satoshi Tateshima5, Gary Duckwiler5, Fernando Vinuela5, David S Liebeskind1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ideal population of patients for endovascular therapy (ET) in acute ischemic stroke remains undefined. Recent ET trials have moved towards selecting patients with proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA) or internal carotid artery occlusions, which will likely leave a gap in our understanding of the treatment outcomes of M2 occlusions. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: To examine the presentation, treatment, and outcomes of M2 compared with M1 MCA occlusions in patients undergoing ET by assessing comprehensive MRI, angiography, and clinical data. RESULTS: We found that M2 occlusions can lead to massive strokes defined by hypoperfused and infarcted volumes as well as death or moderate to severe disability in nearly 50% of patients at discharge. Compared with M1 occlusions, M2 occlusions achieved similar Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b/3 recanalization rates, with significantly less hemorrhage. M2 occlusions presented with smaller infarct and hypoperfused volumes and had smaller final infarct volumes regardless of recanalization. TICI 2b/3 recanalization of M2 occlusions was associated with smaller infarct volumes compared with TICI 0-2a recanalization, as well as less infarct expansion, in patients who received IV tissue plasminogen activator as well as those that did not. Successful reperfusion of M2 occlusions was associated with improved discharge modified Rankin scale. CONCLUSIONS: If suitable as targets of ET, M2 occlusions should be given the same consideration as M1 occlusions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: The ideal population of patients for endovascular therapy (ET) in acute ischemic stroke remains undefined. Recent ET trials have moved towards selecting patients with proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA) or internal carotid artery occlusions, which will likely leave a gap in our understanding of the treatment outcomes of M2 occlusions. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: To examine the presentation, treatment, and outcomes of M2 compared with M1 MCA occlusions in patients undergoing ET by assessing comprehensive MRI, angiography, and clinical data. RESULTS: We found that M2 occlusions can lead to massive strokes defined by hypoperfused and infarcted volumes as well as death or moderate to severe disability in nearly 50% of patients at discharge. Compared with M1 occlusions, M2 occlusions achieved similar Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b/3 recanalization rates, with significantly less hemorrhage. M2 occlusions presented with smaller infarct and hypoperfused volumes and had smaller final infarct volumes regardless of recanalization. TICI 2b/3 recanalization of M2 occlusions was associated with smaller infarct volumes compared with TICI 0-2a recanalization, as well as less infarct expansion, in patients who received IV tissue plasminogen activator as well as those that did not. Successful reperfusion of M2 occlusions was associated with improved discharge modified Rankin scale. CONCLUSIONS: If suitable as targets of ET, M2 occlusions should be given the same consideration as M1 occlusions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Aekaterini Galimanis; Simon Jung; Marie-Luise Mono; Urs Fischer; Oliver Findling; Anja Weck; Niklaus Meier; Gian Marco De Marchis; Caspar Brekenfeld; Marwan El-Koussy; Heinrich P Mattle; Marcel Arnold; Gerhard Schroth; Jan Gralla Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Oh Young Bang; Jeffrey L Saver; Suk Jae Kim; Gyeong-Moon Kim; Chin-Sang Chung; Bruce Ovbiagele; Kwang Ho Lee; David S Liebeskind Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christian H Riedel; Philip Zimmermann; Ulf Jensen-Kondering; Robert Stingele; Günther Deuschl; Olav Jansen Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 7.914
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: S M Wolpert; H Bruckmann; R Greenlee; L Wechsler; M S Pessin; G J del Zoppo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1993 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Almekhlafi; J M Ospel; G Saposnik; N Kashani; A Demchuk; M D Hill; M Goyal; B K Menon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Aglaé Velasco González; Boris Buerke; Dennis Görlich; Rene Chapot; Lucas Smagge; Maria Del Valle Velasco; Cristina Sauerland; Walter Heindel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D Byrne; G Sugrue; E Stanley; J P Walsh; S Murphy; E C Kavanagh; P J MacMahon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robin Lemmens; Scott A Hamilton; David S Liebeskind; Tom A Tomsick; Andrew M Demchuk; Raul G Nogueira; Michael P Marks; Reza Jahan; Jan Gralla; Albert J Yoo; Sharon D Yeatts; Yuko Y Palesch; Jeffrey L Saver; Vitor M Pereira; Joseph P Broderick; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jan Harsany; Jozef Haring; Matus Hoferica; Miroslav Mako; Pavol Janega; Georgi Krastev; Andrej Klepanec Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: J M Coutinho; D S Liebeskind; L-A Slater; R G Nogueira; B W Baxter; E I Levy; A H Siddiqui; M Goyal; O O Zaidat; A Davalos; A Bonafé; R Jahan; J Gralla; J L Saver; V M Pereira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825