I G H Jansen1, O A Berkhemer2,3, A J Yoo4, J A Vos5, G J Lycklama À Nijeholt6, M E S Sprengers2, W H van Zwam7, W J Schonewille8, J Boiten9, M A A van Walderveen10, R J van Oostenbrugge11, A van der Lugt12, H A Marquering13, C B L M Majoie2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (I.G.H.J., O.A.B., M.E.S.S., C.B.L.M.M.) i.g.jansen@amc.nl. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (I.G.H.J., O.A.B., M.E.S.S., C.B.L.M.M.). 3. Departments of Neurology (O.A.B.). 4. Texas Stroke Institute (A.J.Y.), Plano, Texas. 5. Departments of Radiology (J.A.V.). 6. Departments of Radiology (G.J.L.N.). 7. Departments of Radiology (W.H.v.Z.). 8. Neurology (W.J.S.), St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. 9. Neurology (J.B.), Haaglanden Medical Center, The Haag, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Radiology (M.A.A.v.W.), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 11. Neurology (R.J.v.O.), Cardiovascular Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 12. Radiology (A.v.d.L.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 13. Biomedical Engineering and Physics (H.A.M.), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Collateral flow is associated with clinical outcome after acute ischemic stroke and may serve as a parameter for patient selection for intra-arterial therapy. In clinical trials, DSA and CTA are 2 imaging modalities commonly used to assess collateral flow. We aimed to determine the agreement between collateral flow assessment on CTA and DSA and their respective associations with clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients randomized in MR CLEAN with middle cerebral artery occlusion and both baseline CTA images and complete DSA runs were included. Collateral flow on CTA and DSA was graded 0 (absent) to 3 (good). Quadratic weighted κ statistics determined agreement between both methods. The association of both modalities with mRS at 90 days was assessed. Also, association between the dichotomized collateral score and mRS 0-2 (functional independence) was ascertained. RESULTS: Of 45 patients with evaluable imaging data, collateral flow was graded on CTA as 0, 1, 2, 3 for 3, 10, 20, and 12 patients, respectively, and on DSA for 12, 17, 10, and 6 patients, respectively. The κ-value was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.32). The overall proportion of agreement was 24% (95% CI, 0.12-0.38). The adjusted odds ratio for favorable outcome on mRS was 2.27 and 1.29 for CTA and DSA, respectively. The relationship between the dichotomized collateral score and mRS 0-2 was significant for CTA (P = .01), but not for DSA (P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Commonly applied collateral flow assessment on CTA and DSA showed large differences, indicating that these techniques are not interchangeable. CTA was significantly associated with mRS at 90 days, whereas DSA was not.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Collateral flow is associated with clinical outcome after acute ischemic stroke and may serve as a parameter for patient selection for intra-arterial therapy. In clinical trials, DSA and CTA are 2 imaging modalities commonly used to assess collateral flow. We aimed to determine the agreement between collateral flow assessment on CTA and DSA and their respective associations with clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients randomized in MR CLEAN with middle cerebral artery occlusion and both baseline CTA images and complete DSA runs were included. Collateral flow on CTA and DSA was graded 0 (absent) to 3 (good). Quadratic weighted κ statistics determined agreement between both methods. The association of both modalities with mRS at 90 days was assessed. Also, association between the dichotomized collateral score and mRS 0-2 (functional independence) was ascertained. RESULTS: Of 45 patients with evaluable imaging data, collateral flow was graded on CTA as 0, 1, 2, 3 for 3, 10, 20, and 12 patients, respectively, and on DSA for 12, 17, 10, and 6 patients, respectively. The κ-value was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.32). The overall proportion of agreement was 24% (95% CI, 0.12-0.38). The adjusted odds ratio for favorable outcome on mRS was 2.27 and 1.29 for CTA and DSA, respectively. The relationship between the dichotomized collateral score and mRS 0-2 was significant for CTA (P = .01), but not for DSA (P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Commonly applied collateral flow assessment on CTA and DSA showed large differences, indicating that these techniques are not interchangeable. CTA was significantly associated with mRS at 90 days, whereas DSA was not.
Authors: Ewoud J Smit; Evert-jan Vonken; Tom van Seeters; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Irene C van der Schaaf; L Jaap Kappelle; Bram van Ginneken; Birgitta K Velthuis; Mathias Prokop Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Christopher D d'Esterre; Emmad M Qazi; Mohammed Almekhlafi; Leszek Hahn; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Billy O'Brien; Andrew Bivard; Neil J Spratt; Andrew M Demchuk; Ferdinand Miteff; Xuewen Lu; Christopher Levi; Mark W Parsons Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Muneer Eesa; Jeremy L Rempel; John Thornton; Daniel Roy; Tudor G Jovin; Robert A Willinsky; Biggya L Sapkota; Dar Dowlatshahi; Donald F Frei; Noreen R Kamal; Walter J Montanera; Alexandre Y Poppe; Karla J Ryckborst; Frank L Silver; Ashfaq Shuaib; Donatella Tampieri; David Williams; Oh Young Bang; Blaise W Baxter; Paul A Burns; Hana Choe; Ji-Hoe Heo; Christine A Holmstedt; Brian Jankowitz; Michael Kelly; Guillermo Linares; Jennifer L Mandzia; Jai Shankar; Sung-Il Sohn; Richard H Swartz; Philip A Barber; Shelagh B Coutts; Eric E Smith; William F Morrish; Alain Weill; Suresh Subramaniam; Alim P Mitha; John H Wong; Mark W Lowerison; Tolulope T Sajobi; Michael D Hill Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Randall T Higashida; Anthony J Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: James E Faber; William M Chilian; Elisabeth Deindl; Niels van Royen; Michael Simons Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 8.311
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: Yoon-Chul Kim; Jong-Won Chung; Oh Young Bang; Mihee Hong; Woo-Keun Seo; Gyeong-Moon Kim; Eung Yeop Kim; Jin Soo Lee; Ji Man Hong; David S Liebeskind; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Kars C J Compagne; Pascal R D Clephas; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos; Olvert A Berkhemer; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Adriaan C G M van Es; Diederik W J Dippel; Aad van der Lugt; Daniel Bos Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.914