| Literature DB >> 29381701 |
Ivana Galinovic1, Elena Kochova2, Ahmed Khalil1,3,4, Kersten Villringer1, Sophie K Piper1,5, Jochen B Fiebach1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In acute ischemic stroke the status of collateral circulation is a critical factor in determining outcome. We propose a less invasive alternative to digital subtraction angiography for evaluating collaterals based on dynamic-susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29381701 PMCID: PMC5790218 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient demographics and results.
| All patients (n = 35) | Good collaterals (n = 13) | Poor collaterals (n = 22) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, Female (%) | 22 (63) | 10 (77) | 12 (55) | 0.282 |
| Age, Years | 76 (67–82) | 76 (71–83) | 76 (67–83) | 0.880 |
| Time from stroke to MRI (hours) | 5.5 (1.4–14.9) | 3.0 (1.0–10.5) | 10.0 (1.9–16.1) | 0.212 |
| NIHSS admission | 11.0 (4.0–14.0) | 5 (1.5–11.5) | 13.0 (7.0–14.3) | 0.028 |
| NIHSS discharge | 11.0 (2.0–14.0) | 4.0 (0.5–9.5) | 12.5 (6.8–17.5) | 0.002 |
| Initial infarct size (ml) | 8.7 (3.8–28.5) | 1.4 (0.5–6.3) | 24.3 (8.4–44.8) | <0.001 |
| Final infarct size (ml) | 34.3 (9.1–96.4) | 8.3 (3.1–20.5) | 73.8 (34.6–144.3) | <0.001 |
| Infarct growth (ml) | 24.6 (6.1–64.1) | 2.9 (1.7–12.2) | 49.5 (16.9–113.3) | <0.001 |
| Tmax4s volume (ml) | 119.7 (75.8–198.3) | 119.7 (59.3–154.8) | 126.3 (76.8–200.4) | 0.649 |
| Tmax6s volume (ml) | 85.0 (59.8–166.1) | 81.0 (46.5–109.4) | 100.6 (61.2–169.4) | 0.489 |
| CBF volume (ml) | 81.4 (49.7–142.4) | 59.2 (27.9–75.1) | 109.5 (69.5–179.3) | 0.001 |
| CBF/Tmax4s volume ratio | 0.71 (0.45–1.01) | 0.44 (0.36–0.60) | 0.96 (0.70–1.06) | <0.001 |
| CBF/Tmax6s volume ratio | 1.00 (0.64–1.28) | 0.63 (0.50–0.81) | 1.16 (0.96–1.40) | <0.001 |
All values are medians (with limits of interquartile range). Comparisons between groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney-U test for all variables except gender for which Fisher’s exact test was used.
Fig 1Scatter plot of the relationship between CBF/Tmax4s volume ratio, infarct growth and final infarct size, additionally divided based on type of vessel occlusion.
Fig 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves shown for the two CBF/Tmax volume ratios illustrating the performance of various cut-offs to identify patients with poor radiological outcome.
Fig 3Comparison of two patients both imaged 1 hour after symptom onset with a proximal occlusion of the middle cerebral artery and a Higashida score of 2 on source DSC MRI.
Patient A had a left-sided stroke with NIHSS at admission of 12, an initial infarct volume of 3.8ml, perfusion deficit of 200ml on Tmax4s and 108ml on CBF with a CBF/Tmax4s volume ratio of 0.54. The final infarct size was 15.5ml. Patient B had a right-sided stroke with NIHSS at admission of 19, an initial infarct volume of 5.8ml, perfusion deficit of 87ml on Tmax4s and 84ml on CBF with a CBF/Tmax4s volume ratio of 0.96. The final infarct size was 208ml.