Jatinder Patti1, Johanna Helenius1, Ajit S Puri1, Nils Henninger2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (J.P., J.H., N.H.), Department of Radiology (A.S.P.), Department of Neurosurgery (A.S.P.), and Department of Psychiatry (N.H.), University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. 2. From the Department of Neurology (J.P., J.H., N.H.), Department of Radiology (A.S.P.), Department of Neurosurgery (A.S.P.), and Department of Psychiatry (N.H.), University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. nils.henninger@umassmed.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in defining stroke lesion volume thresholds to predict poststroke outcome. However, there is a paucity of data on factors that impact the association between critical infarct thresholds volume and outcome. We sought to determine whether lesion thresholds best predicting outcome depend on the degree of preexisting white matter hyperintensity (WMH) lesion burden. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging infarct volumes were quantified in 414 consecutive patients with anterior circulation ischemic strokes evaluated between January 2014 and December 2014. The WMH lesion volume was graded according to the Fazekas scale and dichotomized to absent to mild versus moderate to severe. Receiver operator characteristics curves were calculated to determine the infarct volume threshold best predicting the 90-day outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether the critical lesion thresholds independently predicted a favorable 90-day outcome after adjusting for pertinent confounders. RESULTS: The infarct volumes thresholds predicting the 90-day outcome for the entire cohort (standard thresholds) were ≤29.5 mL (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 0-1), ≤29.9 mL (mRS 0-2), and ≤34.1 mL (mRS 0-3). For patients with absent-to-mild WMH lesion burden, WMH-adjusted critical infarct thresholds were significantly greater than the standard infarct thresholds. In the fully adjusted multivariable regression models, the WMH-adjusted infarct thresholds correctly predicted the outcome to a similar degree as the standard thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, the WMH lesion burden impacted the critical outcome-predicting infarct thresholds. If confirmed, using a WMH-adjusted infarct threshold could allow defining patients that have a favorable outcome despite having relatively large infarct volumes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in defining stroke lesion volume thresholds to predict poststroke outcome. However, there is a paucity of data on factors that impact the association between critical infarct thresholds volume and outcome. We sought to determine whether lesion thresholds best predicting outcome depend on the degree of preexisting white matter hyperintensity (WMH) lesion burden. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging infarct volumes were quantified in 414 consecutive patients with anterior circulation ischemic strokes evaluated between January 2014 and December 2014. The WMH lesion volume was graded according to the Fazekas scale and dichotomized to absent to mild versus moderate to severe. Receiver operator characteristics curves were calculated to determine the infarct volume threshold best predicting the 90-day outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether the critical lesion thresholds independently predicted a favorable 90-day outcome after adjusting for pertinent confounders. RESULTS: The infarct volumes thresholds predicting the 90-day outcome for the entire cohort (standard thresholds) were ≤29.5 mL (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 0-1), ≤29.9 mL (mRS 0-2), and ≤34.1 mL (mRS 0-3). For patients with absent-to-mild WMH lesion burden, WMH-adjusted critical infarct thresholds were significantly greater than the standard infarct thresholds. In the fully adjusted multivariable regression models, the WMH-adjusted infarct thresholds correctly predicted the outcome to a similar degree as the standard thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, the WMH lesion burden impacted the critical outcome-predicting infarct thresholds. If confirmed, using a WMH-adjusted infarct threshold could allow defining patients that have a favorable outcome despite having relatively large infarct volumes.
Authors: Mirjam J Knol; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Diederick E Grobbee; Mattijs E Numans; Mirjam I Geerlings Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Marc Ribo; Alan Flores; Eloy Mansilla; Marta Rubiera; Alejandro Tomasello; Pilar Coscojuela; Jorge Pagola; David Rodriguez-Luna; Marian Muchada; José Alvarez-Sabín; Carlos A Molina Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 5.836
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: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 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: Lee H Schwamm; Syed F Ali; Mathew J Reeves; Eric E Smith; Jeffrey L Saver; Steven Messe; Deepak L Bhatt; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Eric D Peterson; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-09-01
Authors: Abdul Ghani Mikati; Max Mandelbaum; Shweta Sapnar; Ajit S Puri; Brian Silver; Richard P Goddeau; Diogo C Haussen; Majaz Moonis; Adalia H Jun-O'Connell; Nils Henninger Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Destiny Hooper; Tariq Nisar; David McCane; Jason Lee; Ken Chyuan Ling; Farhaan Vahidy; Kelvin Wong; Stephen Wong; David Chiu; Rajan Gadhia Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-02-04
Authors: Lei Zhao; Adrian Wong; Yishan Luo; Wenyan Liu; Winnie W C Chu; Jill M Abrigo; Ryan K L Lee; Vincent Mok; Lin Shi Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.677