Laurence Legrand1, Guillaume Turc2, Myriam Edjlali1, Marine Beaumont3, Vincent Gautheron1, Wagih Ben Hassen1, Sylvain Charron1, Denis Trystram1, Grégoire Boulouis1, Romain Bourcier4, Joseph Benzakoun1, Olivier Naggara1, Frédéric Clarençon5, Serge Bracard6, Catherine Oppenheim7. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, INSERM U1266, Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 2. Department of Neurology, INSERM U1266, Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 3. Clinical Investigation Centre-Innovative Technology, INSERM U1254, Lorraine University, Lorraine, France. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Department of Neuroradiology, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France. 7. Department of Neuroradiology, INSERM U1266, Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. c.oppenheim@ch-sainte-anne.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We tested whether FLAIR vascular hyperintensities (FVH)-DWI mismatch could identify candidates for thrombectomy most likely to benefit from revascularization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients with proximal MCA occlusion from 18 stroke centers randomized in the IV-thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy arm of the THRACE trial (2010-2015). We tested the associations between successful revascularization on digital subtraction angiography (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b/3) and 3-month favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2), stratified on FVH-DWI mismatch status, with secondary analyses adjusted on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and DWI lesion volume. RESULTS: FVH-DWI mismatch was present in 79% of patients, with a similar prevalence at 1.5 T (80%) and 3 T (78%). Successful revascularization (74%) was more frequent in patients with FVH-DWI mismatch (63/79, 80%) than in patients without (11/21, 52%), p = 0.01. The OR of favorable outcome for revascularization were 15.05 (95% CI 3.12-72.61, p < 0.001) in patients with FVH-DWI mismatch and 0.83 (95% CI 0.15-4.64, p = 0.84) in patients without FVH-DWI mismatch (p = 0.011 for interaction). Similar results were observed after adjustment for NIHSS (OR = 12.73 [95% CI 2.69-60.41, p = 0.001] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.15-6.30, p = 0.96]) or for DWI volume (OR = 12.37 [95% CI 2.76-55.44, p = 0.001] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.16-5.33, p = 0.92]) in patients with and without FVH-DWI mismatch, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FVH-DWI mismatch identifies patients likeliest to benefit from revascularization, irrespective of initial DWI lesion volume and clinical stroke severity, and could serve as a useful surrogate marker for penumbral evaluation. KEY POINTS: • The FVH-DWI mismatch, defined by FLAIR vascular hyperintensities (FVH) located beyond the boundaries of the DWI lesion, is associated with large penumbra. • Among stroke patients with proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion referred for thrombectomy, those with FVH-DWI mismatch are most likely to benefit from revascularization. • FVH-DWI mismatch provides an alternative to PWI-DWI mismatch in order to select patients who are candidates for thrombectomy.
OBJECTIVES: We tested whether FLAIR vascular hyperintensities (FVH)-DWI mismatch could identify candidates for thrombectomy most likely to benefit from revascularization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients with proximal MCA occlusion from 18 stroke centers randomized in the IV-thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy arm of the THRACE trial (2010-2015). We tested the associations between successful revascularization on digital subtraction angiography (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b/3) and 3-month favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2), stratified on FVH-DWI mismatch status, with secondary analyses adjusted on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and DWI lesion volume. RESULTS: FVH-DWI mismatch was present in 79% of patients, with a similar prevalence at 1.5 T (80%) and 3 T (78%). Successful revascularization (74%) was more frequent in patients with FVH-DWI mismatch (63/79, 80%) than in patients without (11/21, 52%), p = 0.01. The OR of favorable outcome for revascularization were 15.05 (95% CI 3.12-72.61, p < 0.001) in patients with FVH-DWI mismatch and 0.83 (95% CI 0.15-4.64, p = 0.84) in patients without FVH-DWI mismatch (p = 0.011 for interaction). Similar results were observed after adjustment for NIHSS (OR = 12.73 [95% CI 2.69-60.41, p = 0.001] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.15-6.30, p = 0.96]) or for DWI volume (OR = 12.37 [95% CI 2.76-55.44, p = 0.001] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.16-5.33, p = 0.92]) in patients with and without FVH-DWI mismatch, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FVH-DWI mismatch identifies patients likeliest to benefit from revascularization, irrespective of initial DWI lesion volume and clinical stroke severity, and could serve as a useful surrogate marker for penumbral evaluation. KEY POINTS: • The FVH-DWI mismatch, defined by FLAIR vascular hyperintensities (FVH) located beyond the boundaries of the DWI lesion, is associated with large penumbra. • Among strokepatients with proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion referred for thrombectomy, those with FVH-DWI mismatch are most likely to benefit from revascularization. • FVH-DWI mismatch provides an alternative to PWI-DWI mismatch in order to select patients who are candidates for thrombectomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Collateral circulation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis; Stroke; Thrombectomy
Authors: Xinyi Leng; Hui Fang; Thomas W H Leung; Chen Mao; Yuming Xu; Zhongrong Miao; Liping Liu; K S Lawrence Wong; David S Liebeskind Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: William J Powers; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Teri Ackerson; Opeolu M Adeoye; Nicholas C Bambakidis; Kyra Becker; José Biller; Michael Brown; Bart M Demaerschalk; Brian Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea S Kidwell; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Bruce Ovbiagele; Phillip A Scott; Kevin N Sheth; Andrew M Southerland; Deborah V Summers; David L Tirschwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Ashutosh P Jadhav; Diogo C Haussen; Alain Bonafe; Ronald F Budzik; Parita Bhuva; Dileep R Yavagal; Marc Ribo; Christophe Cognard; Ricardo A Hanel; Cathy A Sila; Ameer E Hassan; Monica Millan; Elad I Levy; Peter Mitchell; Michael Chen; Joey D English; Qaisar A Shah; Frank L Silver; Vitor M Pereira; Brijesh P Mehta; Blaise W Baxter; Michael G Abraham; Pedro Cardona; Erol Veznedaroglu; Frank R Hellinger; Lei Feng; Jawad F Kirmani; Demetrius K Lopes; Brian T Jankowitz; Michael R Frankel; Vincent Costalat; Nirav A Vora; Albert J Yoo; Amer M Malik; Anthony J Furlan; Marta Rubiera; Amin Aghaebrahim; Jean-Marc Olivot; Wondwossen G Tekle; Ryan Shields; Todd Graves; Roger J Lewis; Wade S Smith; David S Liebeskind; Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Pérez de la Ossa; M Hernández-Pérez; S Domènech; P Cuadras; A Massuet; M Millán; M Gomis; E López-Cancio; L Dorado; A Dávalos Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: L Legrand; M Tisserand; G Turc; O Naggara; M Edjlali; C Mellerio; J-L Mas; J-F Méder; J-C Baron; C Oppenheim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Sanossian; J L Saver; J R Alger; D Kim; G R Duckwiler; R Jahan; F Vinuela; B Ovbiagele; D S Liebeskind Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Johannes Kaesmacher; Thomas Huber; Manuel Lehm; Claus Zimmer; Kathleen Bernkopf; Silke Wunderlich; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Nathan W Manning; Justus F Kleine Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Mingxue Jing; Joshua Y P Yeo; Staffan Holmin; Tommy Andersson; Fabian Arnberg; Paul Bhogal; Cunli Yang; Anil Gopinathan; Tian Ming Tu; Benjamin Yong Qiang Tan; Ching Hui Sia; Hock Luen Teoh; Prakash R Paliwal; Bernard P L Chan; Vijay Sharma; Leonard L L Yeo Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.649