Luuk Dekker1,2, Victor J Geraedts1,2, Hajo Hund3, Suzanne C Cannegieter4, Raul G Nogueira5, Mayank Goyal6, Ido R van den Wijngaard1,2. 1. Department of Neurology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 6. Department of Neurosciences, Radiology and Community Health Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reperfusion status after intra-arterial thrombectomy (IAT) is a critical predictor of functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke. However, most prognostic models have not included a detailed assessment of reperfusion status after IAT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to assess the association between successful reperfusion and clinical outcome. METHODS: Clinical, radiological, and procedural variables of patients treated with IAT were extracted from our prospective stroke registry. The association with functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after 3 months was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An extension of the modified TICI score, eTICI, was used to classify reperfusion status. The prognostic value of reperfusion status after IAT in addition to age, stroke severity, imaging characteristics, treatment with intravenous thrombolysis, and time from symptom onset to the end of IAT was assessed with logistic regression and summarized with receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: In total, 119 patients were included (mean age 66 years). In multivariable analysis, age >80 years (OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.2-39.8), NIHSS at presentation >15 (OR 7.3, 95% CI 2.3-23.5), and incomplete reperfusion status (eTICI score <2C; OR 10.3, 95% CI 3.5-30.6) were the strongest predictors of a poor outcome (mRS 3-6). Adding reperfusion status to the model improved the prognostic accuracy (AUC 0.88, 95% CI 0.91-0.94). Our results indicate a large difference between using an eTICI cutoff of ≥2C versus ≥2B: a cutoff ≥2C improved the predictive value for a good clinical outcome (2C: positive predictive value, PPV, 0.78; 2B: PPV 0.32). CONCLUSION: Our results promote using reperfusion status for assessing prognosis in ischemic stroke patients treated with IAT. A model using eTICI ≥2C had greater PPV than eTICI ≥2B and could improve prognostic accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Reperfusion status after intra-arterial thrombectomy (IAT) is a critical predictor of functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke. However, most prognostic models have not included a detailed assessment of reperfusion status after IAT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to assess the association between successful reperfusion and clinical outcome. METHODS: Clinical, radiological, and procedural variables of patients treated with IAT were extracted from our prospective stroke registry. The association with functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after 3 months was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An extension of the modified TICI score, eTICI, was used to classify reperfusion status. The prognostic value of reperfusion status after IAT in addition to age, stroke severity, imaging characteristics, treatment with intravenous thrombolysis, and time from symptom onset to the end of IAT was assessed with logistic regression and summarized with receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: In total, 119 patients were included (mean age 66 years). In multivariable analysis, age >80 years (OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.2-39.8), NIHSS at presentation >15 (OR 7.3, 95% CI 2.3-23.5), and incomplete reperfusion status (eTICI score <2C; OR 10.3, 95% CI 3.5-30.6) were the strongest predictors of a poor outcome (mRS 3-6). Adding reperfusion status to the model improved the prognostic accuracy (AUC 0.88, 95% CI 0.91-0.94). Our results indicate a large difference between using an eTICI cutoff of ≥2C versus ≥2B: a cutoff ≥2C improved the predictive value for a good clinical outcome (2C: positive predictive value, PPV, 0.78; 2B: PPV 0.32). CONCLUSION: Our results promote using reperfusion status for assessing prognosis in ischemic stroke patients treated with IAT. A model using eTICI ≥2C had greater PPV than eTICI ≥2B and could improve prognostic accuracy.
Authors: Tolulope T Sajobi; Bijoy K Menon; Meng Wang; Oluwaseyi Lawal; Ashfaq Shuaib; David Williams; Alexandre Y Poppe; Tudor G Jovin; Leanne K Casaubon; Thomas Devlin; Dar Dowlatshahi; Chris Fanale; Mark W Lowerison; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Sachin Mishra; Jamsheed A Desai; Vivek Nambiar; Ondrej Volny; Ankur Goel; Muneer Eesa; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Mayank Goyal Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Christophe Cognard; Mauro Gallitelli; Olav Jansen; Adam Kobayashi; Heinrich P Mattle; Keith W Muir; Mikael Mazighi; Karl Schaller; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.266
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: R I Aviv; J Mandelcorn; S Chakraborty; D Gladstone; S Malham; G Tomlinson; A J Fox; S Symons Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-10-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Hanna Styczen; Matthias Gawlitza; Nuran Abdullayev; Alex Brehm; Carmen Serna-Candel; Sebastian Fischer; Johannes Gerber; Christoph Kabbasch; Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Michael Forsting; Hans Henkes; Volker Maus Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-04-12