P Krishnan1, G Saposnik2, B Ovbiagele3, L Zhang4, S Symons1, R Aviv5. 1. From the Division of Neuroradiology (P.K., S.S., R.A.), Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Stroke Outcome Reach Center (G.S.), Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Neurosciences (B.O.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 4. Biostatistician (L.Z.), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. From the Division of Neuroradiology (P.K., S.S., R.A.), Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada richard.aviv@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke Prognostication by Using Age and NIHSS score (SPAN-100 index) facilitates stroke outcomes. We assessed imaging markers associated with the SPAN-100 index and their additional impact on outcome determination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 273 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke (<4.5 hours), 55 were characterized as SPAN-100-positive (age +NIHSS score ≥ 100). A comprehensive imaging review evaluated differences, using the presence of the hyperattenuated vessel sign, ASPECTS, clot burden score, collateral score, CBV, CBF, and MTT. The primary outcome assessed was favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2). Secondary outcomes included recanalization, lack of neurologic improvement, and hemorrhagic transformation. Uni- and multivariate analyses assessed factors associated with favorable outcome. Area under the curve evaluated predictors of favorable clinical outcome. RESULTS: Compared with the SPAN-100-negative group, the SPAN-100-positive group (55/273; 20%) demonstrated larger CBVs (<0.001), poorer collaterals (P < .001), and increased hemorrhagic transformation rates (56.0% versus 36%, P = .02) despite earlier time to rtPA (P = .03). Favorable outcome was less common among patients with SPAN-100-positive compared with SPAN-100-negative (10.9% versus 42.2%; P < .001). Multivariate regression revealed poorer outcome for SPAN-100-positive (OR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.38; P = .001), clot burden score (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25; P < .001), and CBV (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.72; P = .001). The addition of the clot burden score and CBV improved the predictive value of SPAN-100 alone for favorable outcome from 60% to 68% and 74%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SPAN-100-positivity predicts a lower likelihood of favorable outcome and increased hemorrhagic transformation. CBV and clot burden score contribute to poorer outcomes among high-risk patients and improve stroke-outcome prediction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Stroke Prognostication by Using Age and NIHSS score (SPAN-100 index) facilitates stroke outcomes. We assessed imaging markers associated with the SPAN-100 index and their additional impact on outcome determination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 273 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke (<4.5 hours), 55 were characterized as SPAN-100-positive (age +NIHSS score ≥ 100). A comprehensive imaging review evaluated differences, using the presence of the hyperattenuated vessel sign, ASPECTS, clot burden score, collateral score, CBV, CBF, and MTT. The primary outcome assessed was favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2). Secondary outcomes included recanalization, lack of neurologic improvement, and hemorrhagic transformation. Uni- and multivariate analyses assessed factors associated with favorable outcome. Area under the curve evaluated predictors of favorable clinical outcome. RESULTS: Compared with the SPAN-100-negative group, the SPAN-100-positive group (55/273; 20%) demonstrated larger CBVs (<0.001), poorer collaterals (P < .001), and increased hemorrhagic transformation rates (56.0% versus 36%, P = .02) despite earlier time to rtPA (P = .03). Favorable outcome was less common among patients with SPAN-100-positive compared with SPAN-100-negative (10.9% versus 42.2%; P < .001). Multivariate regression revealed poorer outcome for SPAN-100-positive (OR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.38; P = .001), clot burden score (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25; P < .001), and CBV (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.72; P = .001). The addition of the clot burden score and CBV improved the predictive value of SPAN-100 alone for favorable outcome from 60% to 68% and 74%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:SPAN-100-positivity predicts a lower likelihood of favorable outcome and increased hemorrhagic transformation. CBV and clot burden score contribute to poorer outcomes among high-risk patients and improve stroke-outcome prediction.
Authors: M H Lev; A Z Segal; J Farkas; S T Hossain; C Putman; G J Hunter; R Budzik; G J Harris; F S Buonanno; M A Ezzeddine; Y Chang; W J Koroshetz; R G Gonzalez; L H Schwamm Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Julia Hopyan; Anthony Ciarallo; Dar Dowlatshahi; Peter Howard; Verity John; Robert Yeung; Liying Zhang; Jisung Kim; Genevieve MacFarlane; Ting-Yim Lee; Richard I Aviv Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: I Y L Tan; A M Demchuk; J Hopyan; L Zhang; D Gladstone; K Wong; M Martin; S P Symons; A J Fox; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Volker Puetz; Imanuel Dzialowski; Michael D Hill; Suresh Subramaniam; P N Sylaja; Andrea Krol; Christine O'Reilly; Mark E Hudon; William Y Hu; Shelagh B Coutts; Philip A Barber; Timothy Watson; Jayanta Roy; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Gustavo Saposnik; Michael D Hill; Martin O'Donnell; Jiming Fang; Vladimir Hachinski; Moira K Kapral Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A R Jain; M Jain; A R Kanthala; D Damania; L G Stead; H Z Wang; B S Jahromi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Inke R König; Andreas Ziegler; Erich Bluhmki; Werner Hacke; Philip M W Bath; Ralph L Sacco; Hans C Diener; Christian Weimar Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Johannes Kaesmacher; Christian Maegerlein; Mirjam Kaesmacher; Claus Zimmer; Holger Poppert; Benjamin Friedrich; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Justus F Kleine Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.501