C Jung1, W Yoon2, S J Ahn3, B S Choi1, J H Kim1, S H Suh4. 1. From the Department of Radiology (C.J., B.S.C., J.H.K.), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology (W.Y.), Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology (S.J.A., S.H.S.), Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Radiology (S.J.A., S.H.S.), Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea Severance Institute of Vascular and Metabolic Research (S.H.S.), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. suhsh11@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although various revascularization scales are used in the angiographic evaluation of acute ischemic stroke, observer reliability tests of these scales have been rarely performed for posterior circulation stroke. We aimed to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability of 2 scales, the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and the Arterial Occlusive Lesion, in posterior circulation stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent readers interpreted pre- and postthrombolytic angiographies of 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke by using the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and Arterial Occlusive Lesion scales. The κ statistic was used to measure observer agreement for both scales, and κ > 0.6 was considered substantial agreement. RESULTS: For the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale, inter- and intraobserver agreement was >0.6. While intraobserver agreement of the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia scale was >0.6 except for 1 reader, interobserver agreement was lower in dichotomized and original scales. In 49 cases with solely basilar artery occlusion, inter- and intraobserver agreement of both scales was similar to that in all 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke. In 2 consecutive readings, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of mTICI 2a reads (22.58% in the first versus 13.44% in the second session, P < .03) and a reciprocal increase in the sum of proportions for modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b and modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 3 reads (62.37% in the first versus 72.58% in the second session, P < .046). CONCLUSIONS: In angiographic assessment of posterior circulation stroke, inter- and intraobserver agreement for the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale was reliable, while the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia failed to achieve substantial interobserver agreement. The clinical impact of this result needs to be validated in future studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although various revascularization scales are used in the angiographic evaluation of acute ischemic stroke, observer reliability tests of these scales have been rarely performed for posterior circulation stroke. We aimed to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability of 2 scales, the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and the Arterial Occlusive Lesion, in posterior circulation stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent readers interpreted pre- and postthrombolytic angiographies of 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke by using the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and Arterial Occlusive Lesion scales. The κ statistic was used to measure observer agreement for both scales, and κ > 0.6 was considered substantial agreement. RESULTS: For the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale, inter- and intraobserver agreement was >0.6. While intraobserver agreement of the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia scale was >0.6 except for 1 reader, interobserver agreement was lower in dichotomized and original scales. In 49 cases with solely basilar artery occlusion, inter- and intraobserver agreement of both scales was similar to that in all 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke. In 2 consecutive readings, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of mTICI 2a reads (22.58% in the first versus 13.44% in the second session, P < .03) and a reciprocal increase in the sum of proportions for modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b and modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 3 reads (62.37% in the first versus 72.58% in the second session, P < .046). CONCLUSIONS: In angiographic assessment of posterior circulation stroke, inter- and intraobserver agreement for the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale was reliable, while the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia failed to achieve substantial interobserver agreement. The clinical impact of this result needs to be validated in future studies.
Authors: Johannes C Gerber; Dirk Daubner; Daniel Kaiser; Kay Engellandt; Kevin Haedrich; Angela Mueller; Volker Puetz; Jennifer Linn; Andrij Abramyuk Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Daniel Behme; Ioannis Tsogkas; Ruben Colla; Roland G Gera; Katharina Schregel; Amélie C Hesse; Ilko L Maier; Jan Liman; David S Liebeskind; Marios-Nikos Psychogios Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M Findler; A S Turjman; J Raymond; P M White; U Sadeh-Gonik; C A Taschner; M Mazighi; A Biondi; B Gory; F Turjman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Sanne J den Hartog; Bob Roozenbeek; Nikki Boodt; Agnetha A E Bruggeman; Adriaan C G M van Es; Bart J Emmer; Charles B L M Majoie; Ido R van den Wijngaard; Pieter Jan van Doormaal; Wim H van Zwam; Hester F Lingsma; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.836