Lauma Ava1, Joachim Berkefeld1, Arne Lauer1, Alexander Seiler2, Waltraud Pfeilschifter2, Monika Müller-Eschner1, Se-Jong You1, Stefan Weidauer3, Ulrich Pilatus1, Marlies Wagner4. 1. Institute of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Neurology, Sankt Katharinen-Krankenhaus GmbH, Seckbacher Landstraße 65, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. 4. Institute of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528, Frankfurt, Germany. marlies.wagner@kgu.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Detection of ischemic core and collateral status is helpful to predict clinical success of thrombectomy in acute cerebral artery occlusion. Angiographic flat panel detector computed tomography (CT) with pooled blood volume (PBV) data acquisition was described to be helpful to estimate ischemic core in stroke patients prior to thrombectomy and to depict cerebral vessels. We therefore retrospectively evaluated preinterventional PBV data of a large collective of ischemic stroke patients prior to thrombectomy to test its predictive value on final infarct considering PBV maps and collateral status. METHODS: We used PBV data from 101 patients with acute cerebral artery occlusion prior to successful thrombectomy to reconstruct PBV maps and collateral status maps. Suspected ischemic core and collateral status were correlated to final infarct on follow-up multislice CT. Furthermore, the influence of time window and patient age was taken into consideration. RESULTS: In 75.2% (95% confidence interval CI 66-82%), suspected ischemic core (PBV) matched with final infarct and in 24.8% (95% CI 17-34%) final infarct was overestimated. In all patients, collateral status could be evaluated, and the better the collateral status, the smaller the final infarct (p = 0.016). Although not statistically significant, poor collaterals seem to be a risk factor for overestimation of final infarct on PBV maps. In patients >80 years old predictive value of PBV and collateral status is better than in patients ≤80 years old (p = 0.04). Increasing time window did not have significant impact on predictive value of PBV and collateral status. CONCLUSION: The PBV data are useful to expeditiously exclude infarct growth and estimate collateral status prior to thrombectomy after a longer interval between initial multislice CT magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intervention. However, because of overestimating final infarct in 25% of patients, PBV data presuming large infarct should not be used as the only basis for excluding patients from effective stroke treatment at this point in time.
PURPOSE: Detection of ischemic core and collateral status is helpful to predict clinical success of thrombectomy in acute cerebral artery occlusion. Angiographic flat panel detector computed tomography (CT) with pooled blood volume (PBV) data acquisition was described to be helpful to estimate ischemic core in strokepatients prior to thrombectomy and to depict cerebral vessels. We therefore retrospectively evaluated preinterventional PBV data of a large collective of ischemic strokepatients prior to thrombectomy to test its predictive value on final infarct considering PBV maps and collateral status. METHODS: We used PBV data from 101 patients with acute cerebral artery occlusion prior to successful thrombectomy to reconstruct PBV maps and collateral status maps. Suspected ischemic core and collateral status were correlated to final infarct on follow-up multislice CT. Furthermore, the influence of time window and patient age was taken into consideration. RESULTS: In 75.2% (95% confidence interval CI 66-82%), suspected ischemic core (PBV) matched with final infarct and in 24.8% (95% CI 17-34%) final infarct was overestimated. In all patients, collateral status could be evaluated, and the better the collateral status, the smaller the final infarct (p = 0.016). Although not statistically significant, poor collaterals seem to be a risk factor for overestimation of final infarct on PBV maps. In patients >80 years old predictive value of PBV and collateral status is better than in patients ≤80 years old (p = 0.04). Increasing time window did not have significant impact on predictive value of PBV and collateral status. CONCLUSION: The PBV data are useful to expeditiously exclude infarct growth and estimate collateral status prior to thrombectomy after a longer interval between initial multislice CT magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intervention. However, because of overestimating final infarct in 25% of patients, PBV data presuming large infarct should not be used as the only basis for excluding patients from effective stroke treatment at this point in time.
Authors: Marlies Wagner; Yiannis Kyriakou; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Joachim Berkefeld Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 2.740
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: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S Diekmann; E Siebert; R Juran; M Roll; W Deeg; H-C Bauknecht; F Diekmann; R Klingebiel; G Bohner Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
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: David Fiorella; Aquilla Turk; Imran Chaudry; Raymond Turner; Jared Dunkin; Clemente Roque; Marily Sarmiento; Yu Deuerling-Zheng; Christine M Denice; Marlene Baumeister; Adrian T Parker; Henry H Woo Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Thijs van der Zijden; Annelies Mondelaers; Maurits Voormolen; Tomas Menovsky; Maarten Niekel; Thomas Jardinet; Thomas Van Thielen; Olivier D'Archambeau; Paul M Parizel Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-08-13
Authors: T Nozaki; M Noda; T Ishibashi; K Otani; M Kogiku; K Abe; H Kishi; A Morita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Arne Potreck; Alina Falbesaner; Fatih Seker; Charlotte S Weyland; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Johannes Ar Pfaff Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-05-20