Marielle Ernst1, Anna M M Boers2, Annette Aigner2, Olvert A Berkhemer2, Albert J Yoo2, Yvo B Roos2, Diederik W J Dippel2, Aad van der Lugt2, Robert J van Oostenbrugge2, Wim H van Zwam2, Jens Fiehler2, Henk A Marquering2, Charles B L M Majoie2. 1. From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (M.E., J.F.) and Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology (A.A.), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; Departments of Radiology (A.M.M.B., O.A.B., H.A.M., C.B.L.M.M.), Biomedical Engineering and Physics (A.M.M.B., H.A.M.), and Neurology (Y.B.R.), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (A.M.M.B.); Division of Neurointervention, Texas Stroke Institute, Dallas-Fort Worth (A.J.Y.); Departments of Neurology (O.A.B., D.W.J.D.) and Radiology (A.v.d.L.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Departments of Neurology (R.J.v.O.) and Radiology (O.A.B., W.H.v.Z), Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands; and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, the Netherlands (R.J.v.O.). m.ernst@uke.de. 2. From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (M.E., J.F.) and Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology (A.A.), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; Departments of Radiology (A.M.M.B., O.A.B., H.A.M., C.B.L.M.M.), Biomedical Engineering and Physics (A.M.M.B., H.A.M.), and Neurology (Y.B.R.), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (A.M.M.B.); Division of Neurointervention, Texas Stroke Institute, Dallas-Fort Worth (A.J.Y.); Departments of Neurology (O.A.B., D.W.J.D.) and Radiology (A.v.d.L.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Departments of Neurology (R.J.v.O.) and Radiology (O.A.B., W.H.v.Z), Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands; and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, the Netherlands (R.J.v.O.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ischemic lesion volume (ILV) assessed by follow-up noncontrast computed tomography correlates only moderately with clinical end points, such as the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We hypothesized that the association between follow-up noncontrast computed tomography ILV and outcome as assessed with mRS 3 months after stroke is strengthened when taking the mRS relevance of the infarct location into account. METHODS: An anatomic atlas with 66 areas was registered to the follow-up noncontrast computed tomographic images of 254 patients from the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The anatomic brain areas were divided into brain areas of high, moderate, and low mRS relevance as reported in the literature. Based on this distinction, the ILV in brain areas of high, moderate, and low mRS relevance was assessed for each patient. Binary and ordinal logistic regression analyses with and without adjustment for known confounders were performed to assess the association between the ILVs of different mRS relevance and outcome. RESULTS: The odds for a worse outcome (higher mRS) were markedly higher given an increase of ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.55 per 10 mL) compared with an increase in total ILV (odds ratios, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.19 per 10 mL). Regression models using ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance instead of total ILV showed a higher quality. CONCLUSIONS: The association between follow-up noncontrast computed tomography ILV and outcome as assessed with mRS 3 months after stroke is strengthened by accounting for the mRS relevance of the affected brain areas. Future prediction models should account for the ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ischemic lesion volume (ILV) assessed by follow-up noncontrast computed tomography correlates only moderately with clinical end points, such as the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We hypothesized that the association between follow-up noncontrast computed tomography ILV and outcome as assessed with mRS 3 months after stroke is strengthened when taking the mRS relevance of the infarct location into account. METHODS: An anatomic atlas with 66 areas was registered to the follow-up noncontrast computed tomographic images of 254 patients from the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The anatomic brain areas were divided into brain areas of high, moderate, and low mRS relevance as reported in the literature. Based on this distinction, the ILV in brain areas of high, moderate, and low mRS relevance was assessed for each patient. Binary and ordinal logistic regression analyses with and without adjustment for known confounders were performed to assess the association between the ILVs of different mRS relevance and outcome. RESULTS: The odds for a worse outcome (higher mRS) were markedly higher given an increase of ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.55 per 10 mL) compared with an increase in total ILV (odds ratios, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.19 per 10 mL). Regression models using ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance instead of total ILV showed a higher quality. CONCLUSIONS: The association between follow-up noncontrast computed tomography ILV and outcome as assessed with mRS 3 months after stroke is strengthened by accounting for the mRS relevance of the affected brain areas. Future prediction models should account for the ILV in brain areas of high mRS relevance.
Authors: Tina Kaffenberger; Vijay Venkatraman; Chris Steward; Vincent N Thijs; Julie Bernhardt; Patricia M Desmond; Bruce C V Campbell; Nawaf Yassi Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: Renan Sales Barros; Manon L Tolhuisen; Anna Mm Boers; Ivo Jansen; Elena Ponomareva; Diederik W J Dippel; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Olvert A Berkhemer; Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Peter Mitchell; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin; Antoni Davalos; Bruce C V Campbell; Jeffrey L Saver; Yvo B W E M Roos; Keith W Muir; Phil White; Serge Bracard; Francis Guillemin; Silvia Delgado Olabarriaga; Charles B L M Majoie; Henk A Marquering Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: K C J Compagne; A M M Boers; H A Marquering; O A Berkhemer; A J Yoo; L F M Beenen; R J van Oostenbrugge; W H van Zwam; Y B W E M Roos; C B Majoie; A C G M van Es; A van der Lugt; D W J Dippel; H Lingsma Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kelly M Scheulin; Brian J Jurgielewicz; Samantha E Spellicy; Elizabeth S Waters; Emily W Baker; Holly A Kinder; Gregory A Simchick; Sydney E Sneed; Janet A Grimes; Qun Zhao; Steven L Stice; Franklin D West Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Peter B Sporns; Johanna Ospel; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Reza Kabiri; Fabian A Flottmann; Bijoy K Menon; Mackenzie Horn; David S Liebeskind; Tristan Honda; Marc Ribo; Manuel Requena Ruiz; Christoph Kabbasch; Thorsten Lichtenstein; Christoph J Maurer; Ansgar Berlis; Victoria Hellstern; Hans Henkes; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Fatih Seker; Marielle S Ernst; Jan Liman; Georgios Tsivgoulis; Alex Brehm Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.649