Joon Hyun Baek1, Kitae Kim1, Yeong-Bae Lee1, Kee-Hyung Park1, Hyeon-Mi Park1, Dong-Jin Shin1, Young Hee Sung1, Dong Hoon Shin2, Oh Young Bang3. 1. Department of Neurology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, South Korea. 2. Department of Neurology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, South Korea. Electronic address: dr.donghoon.shin@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several models to predict outcome in ischemic stroke patients receiving intravenous (i.v.) alteplase can be divided into clinical-based and imaging-based systems. Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (CT) Score (ASPECTS) and Dense cerebral artery sign/early infarct signs on admission CT scan, prestroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, Age, Glucose level at baseline, Onset-to-treatment time, and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (DRAGON) are typical imaging- and clinical-based scoring systems, respectively. Therefore, we compared predictability of stroke outcome of clinical (DRAGON)- and imaging (ASPECTS)-based scoring systems. METHODS: We analyzed patients who were diagnosed with middle cerebral artery territory stroke and treated with i.v. alteplase at Gachon University Gil Hospital over 5 years and compared performance of 2 scoring systems for prediction of good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) with Pearson correlation and area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC). In addition, we analyzed predicting power of several clinical factors and 2 scoring systems by multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Study population (N = 120) had mean age of 66.2 ± 13.2 years. ASPECTS (r = -.841, P < .0001) and DRAGON (r = .657, P < .0001) were significantly correlated with good functional outcome. In addition, statistical comparisons suggested that ASPECTS (AUC-ROC, .972; 95% confidence interval [CI], .947-.996) is significantly superior to DRAGON (AUC-ROC, .854; 95% CI, .786-.922) in predicting functional outcome (difference between areas, .118 ± .0332; 95% CI, .0559-.180, P = .0002). Multiple regression analysis revealed that ASPECTS was the independent predictor of good prognosis (OR, 6.59 per 1-point increase; 95% CI, 2.35-18.49; P < .0001 and OR, 77.67 for ASPECTS ≥ 8; 95% CI, 14.30-421.79; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: ASPECTS is superior method for predicting functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving i.v. alteplase compared with DRAGON and integration of ASPECTS score into clinical care pathway as decision-making tool can be reasonable.
BACKGROUND: Several models to predict outcome in ischemic strokepatients receiving intravenous (i.v.) alteplase can be divided into clinical-based and imaging-based systems. Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (CT) Score (ASPECTS) and Dense cerebral artery sign/early infarct signs on admission CT scan, prestroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, Age, Glucose level at baseline, Onset-to-treatment time, and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (DRAGON) are typical imaging- and clinical-based scoring systems, respectively. Therefore, we compared predictability of stroke outcome of clinical (DRAGON)- and imaging (ASPECTS)-based scoring systems. METHODS: We analyzed patients who were diagnosed with middle cerebral artery territory stroke and treated with i.v. alteplase at Gachon University Gil Hospital over 5 years and compared performance of 2 scoring systems for prediction of good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) with Pearson correlation and area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC). In addition, we analyzed predicting power of several clinical factors and 2 scoring systems by multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Study population (N = 120) had mean age of 66.2 ± 13.2 years. ASPECTS (r = -.841, P < .0001) and DRAGON (r = .657, P < .0001) were significantly correlated with good functional outcome. In addition, statistical comparisons suggested that ASPECTS (AUC-ROC, .972; 95% confidence interval [CI], .947-.996) is significantly superior to DRAGON (AUC-ROC, .854; 95% CI, .786-.922) in predicting functional outcome (difference between areas, .118 ± .0332; 95% CI, .0559-.180, P = .0002). Multiple regression analysis revealed that ASPECTS was the independent predictor of good prognosis (OR, 6.59 per 1-point increase; 95% CI, 2.35-18.49; P < .0001 and OR, 77.67 for ASPECTS ≥ 8; 95% CI, 14.30-421.79; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: ASPECTS is superior method for predicting functional outcome in acute ischemic strokepatients receiving i.v. alteplase compared with DRAGON and integration of ASPECTS score into clinical care pathway as decision-making tool can be reasonable.
Authors: Behzad Farzin; Robert Fahed; Francois Guilbert; Alexandre Y Poppe; Nicole Daneault; André P Durocher; Sylvain Lanthier; Hayet Boudjani; Naim N Khoury; Daniel Roy; Alain Weill; Jean-Christophe Gentric; André L Batista; Laurent Létourneau-Guillon; François Bergeron; Marc-Antoine Henry; Tim E Darsaut; Jean Raymond Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Arthur Wang; Noorie Pednekar; Rachel Lehrer; Akira Todo; Ramandeep Sahni; Stephen Marks; Michael F Stiefel Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Nolwenn Riou-Comte; Benjamin Gory; Marc Soudant; François Zhu; Yu Xie; Lisa Humbertjean; Gioia Mione; Catherine Oppenheim; Francis Guillemin; Serge Bracard; Sébastien Richard Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2021-06-08