E M Fanou1, J Knight1, R I Aviv2, S-P Hojjat1, S P Symons1, L Zhang1, M Wintermark3. 1. From the Division of Neuroradiology (E.M.F., J.K., R.I.A., S.-P.H., S.P.S., L.Z.), Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. From the Division of Neuroradiology (E.M.F., J.K., R.I.A., S.-P.H., S.P.S., L.Z.), Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada richard.aviv@sunnybrook.ca. 3. Division of Neuroradiology (M.W.), Department of Radiology, Stanford University, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Good CTA collaterals independently predict good outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the role of collateral circulation and its added benefit over CTP-derived total ischemic volume as a predictor of baseline NIHSS score, total ischemic volume, hemorrhagic transformation, final infarct size, and a modified Rankin Scale score >2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 395 patients with stroke dichotomized by recanalization (recanalization positive/recanalization negative) and collateral status. Clot burden score was quantified on baseline CTA. Total ischemic volumes were derived from thresholded CTP maps. Final infarct size was assessed on follow-up CT/MRI. We performed uni-/multivariate analyses for each outcome, adjusting for rtPA status, using general linear (continuous variables) and logistic (binary variables) regression. Model comparison with collateral score and total ischemic volume was performed using the F or likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Collateral presence independently and inversely predicted all outcomes except hemorrhagic transformation in patients who were recanalization negative and mRS >2 in patients who were recanalization positive. The greatest collateral benefit occurred in patients who were recanalization negative, contributing 16.5% and 19.2% of the variability for final infarct size and mRS >2. The collateral score model is superior to the total ischemic volume for mRS >2 prediction, but a combination of total ischemic volume and collateral score is superior for mRS >2 and final infarct prediction (24% and 28% variability, respectively). In patients who were recanalization positive, a model including collateral score and total ischemic volume was superior to that of total ischemic volume for hemorrhagic transformation and final infarct prediction but was muted compared with patients who were recanalization negative (11.3% and 16.9% variability). CONCLUSIONS: Collateral circulation is an independent predictor of all outcomes, but the magnitude of significance varies, greater in patients who were recanalization negative versus recanalization positive. Total ischemic volume assessment is complementary to collateral score in many cases.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Good CTA collaterals independently predict good outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the role of collateral circulation and its added benefit over CTP-derived total ischemic volume as a predictor of baseline NIHSS score, total ischemic volume, hemorrhagic transformation, final infarct size, and a modified Rankin Scale score >2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 395 patients with stroke dichotomized by recanalization (recanalization positive/recanalization negative) and collateral status. Clot burden score was quantified on baseline CTA. Total ischemic volumes were derived from thresholded CTP maps. Final infarct size was assessed on follow-up CT/MRI. We performed uni-/multivariate analyses for each outcome, adjusting for rtPA status, using general linear (continuous variables) and logistic (binary variables) regression. Model comparison with collateral score and total ischemic volume was performed using the F or likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Collateral presence independently and inversely predicted all outcomes except hemorrhagic transformation in patients who were recanalization negative and mRS >2 in patients who were recanalization positive. The greatest collateral benefit occurred in patients who were recanalization negative, contributing 16.5% and 19.2% of the variability for final infarct size and mRS >2. The collateral score model is superior to the total ischemic volume for mRS >2 prediction, but a combination of total ischemic volume and collateral score is superior for mRS >2 and final infarct prediction (24% and 28% variability, respectively). In patients who were recanalization positive, a model including collateral score and total ischemic volume was superior to that of total ischemic volume for hemorrhagic transformation and final infarct prediction but was muted compared with patients who were recanalization negative (11.3% and 16.9% variability). CONCLUSIONS: Collateral circulation is an independent predictor of all outcomes, but the magnitude of significance varies, greater in patients who were recanalization negative versus recanalization positive. Total ischemic volume assessment is complementary to collateral score in many cases.
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: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: L C S Souza; A J Yoo; Z A Chaudhry; S Payabvash; A Kemmling; P W Schaefer; J A Hirsch; K L Furie; R G González; R G Nogueira; M H Lev Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Eilaghi; C D d'Esterre; T Y Lee; R Jakubovic; J Brooks; R T-K Liu; L Zhang; R H Swartz; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Maher Saqqur; Ken Uchino; Andrew M Demchuk; Carlos A Molina; Zsolt Garami; Sergio Calleja; Naveed Akhtar; Finton O Orouk; Abdul Salam; Ashfaq Shuaib; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 7.914
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: 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: V Nambiar; S I Sohn; M A Almekhlafi; H W Chang; S Mishra; E Qazi; M Eesa; A M Demchuk; M Goyal; M D Hill; B K Menon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alexander D Horsch; Edwin Bennink; Tom van Seeters; L Jaap Kappelle; Yolanda van der Graaf; Willem P T M Mali; Hugo W A M de Jong; Birgitta K Velthuis; Jan Willem Dankbaar Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Nils H Petersen; Khalid Al-Dasuqi; Gerardo A Torres-Flores; Sumita M Strander; Cindy Khanh Nguyen; Krithika U Peshwe; Sreeja Kodali; Andrew Silverman; Ajay Malhotra; Michele H Johnson; Charles C Matouk; Joseph L Schindler; Lauren H Sansing; Guido J Falcone; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Steven J Warach; Marie Luby; Gregory W Albers; Roland Bammer; Andrew Bivard; Bruce C V Campbell; Colin Derdeyn; Jeremy J Heit; Pooja Khatri; Maarten G Lansberg; David S Liebeskind; Charles B L M Majoie; Michael P Marks; Bijoy K Menon; Keith W Muir; Mark W Parsons; Achala Vagal; Albert J Yoo; Andrei V Alexandrov; Jean-Claude Baron; David J Fiorella; Anthony J Furlan; Josep Puig; Peter D Schellinger; Max Wintermark Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 7.914