Marie Luby1, Steven J Warach2, Gregory W Albers3, Jean-Claude Baron4, Christophe Cognard5, Antoni Dávalos6, Geoffrey A Donnan7, Jochen B Fiebach8, Jens Fiehler9, Werner Hacke10, Maarten G Lansberg3, David S Liebeskind11, Heinrich P Mattle12, Catherine Oppenheim13, Peter D Schellinger14, Joanna M Wardlaw15, Max Wintermark16. 1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, Seton/UT Southwestern Clinical Research Institute of Austin, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Austin, TX, USA lubym@ninds.nih.gov. 2. Dell Medical School, University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 3. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. INSERM U894, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 6. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Badalona, Spain. 7. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 8. Academic Neuroradiology, Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 9. University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 10. Department of Neurology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. UCLA Stroke Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 12. Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 13. Université Paris-Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, INSERM U 894, Paris, France. 14. Johannes Wesling Medical Center Minden, Minden, Germany. 15. Division of Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 16. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For the STroke Imaging Research (STIR) and VISTA-Imaging Investigators The purpose of this study was to collect precise information on the typical imaging decisions given specific clinical acute stroke scenarios. Stroke centers worldwide were surveyed regarding typical imaging used to work up representative acute stroke patients, make treatment decisions, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials. METHODS: STroke Imaging Research and Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive-Imaging circulated an online survey of clinical case vignettes through its website, the websites of national professional societies from multiple countries as well as through email distribution lists from STroke Imaging Research and participating societies. Survey responders were asked to select the typical imaging work-up for each clinical vignette presented. Actual images were not presented to the survey responders. Instead, the survey then displayed several types of imaging findings offered by the imaging strategy, and the responders selected the appropriate therapy and whether to enroll into a clinical trial considering time from onset, clinical presentation, and imaging findings. A follow-up survey focusing on 6 h from onset was conducted after the release of the positive endovascular trials. RESULTS: We received 548 responses from 35 countries including 282 individual centers; 78% of the centers originating from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. The specific onset windows presented influenced the type of imaging work-up selected more than the clinical scenario. Magnetic Resonance Imaging usage (27-28%) was substantial, in particular for wake-up stroke. Following the release of the positive trials, selection of perfusion imaging significantly increased for imaging strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Usage of vascular or perfusion imaging by Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging beyond just parenchymal imaging was the primary work-up (62-87%) across all clinical vignettes and time windows. Perfusion imaging with Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging was associated with increased probability of enrollment into clinical trials for 0-3 h. Following the release of the positive endovascular trials, selection of endovascular only treatment for 6 h increased across all clinical vignettes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For the STroke Imaging Research (STIR) and VISTA-Imaging Investigators The purpose of this study was to collect precise information on the typical imaging decisions given specific clinical acute stroke scenarios. Stroke centers worldwide were surveyed regarding typical imaging used to work up representative acute strokepatients, make treatment decisions, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials. METHODS:STroke Imaging Research and Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive-Imaging circulated an online survey of clinical case vignettes through its website, the websites of national professional societies from multiple countries as well as through email distribution lists from STroke Imaging Research and participating societies. Survey responders were asked to select the typical imaging work-up for each clinical vignette presented. Actual images were not presented to the survey responders. Instead, the survey then displayed several types of imaging findings offered by the imaging strategy, and the responders selected the appropriate therapy and whether to enroll into a clinical trial considering time from onset, clinical presentation, and imaging findings. A follow-up survey focusing on 6 h from onset was conducted after the release of the positive endovascular trials. RESULTS: We received 548 responses from 35 countries including 282 individual centers; 78% of the centers originating from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. The specific onset windows presented influenced the type of imaging work-up selected more than the clinical scenario. Magnetic Resonance Imaging usage (27-28%) was substantial, in particular for wake-up stroke. Following the release of the positive trials, selection of perfusion imaging significantly increased for imaging strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Usage of vascular or perfusion imaging by Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging beyond just parenchymal imaging was the primary work-up (62-87%) across all clinical vignettes and time windows. Perfusion imaging with Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging was associated with increased probability of enrollment into clinical trials for 0-3 h. Following the release of the positive endovascular trials, selection of endovascular only treatment for 6 h increased across all clinical vignettes.
Authors: Keith W Muir; Jonathan Baird-Gunning; Leighton Walker; Tracey Baird; Michael McCormick; Shelagh B Coutts Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-08-02 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: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ke Lin; Kinh G Do; Phat Ong; Maksim Shapiro; James S Babb; Keith A Siller; Bidyut K Pramanik Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: R Gasparotti; M Grassi; D Mardighian; M Frigerio; M Pavia; R Liserre; M Magoni; L Mascaro; A Padovani; A Pezzini Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Adam de Havenon; Alicia Bennett; Gregory J Stoddard; Gordon Smith; Lee Chung; Steve O'Donnell; J Scott McNally; David Tirschwell; Jennifer J Majersik Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2017-02-24
Authors: Ayse Ceren Tanrıtanır; Kersten Villringer; Ivana Galinovic; Ulrike Grittner; Evgeniya Kirilina; Jochen B Fiebach; Arno Villringer; Ahmed A Khalil Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 4.003