| Literature DB >> 30912272 |
Thoralf Thamm1,2, Sarah Zweynert1,2, Sophie K Piper3,4, Vince I Madai1,5, Michelle Livne1, Steve Z Martin1, Cornelius X Herzig1, Matthias A Mutke1,6, Eberhard Siebert7, Thomas Liebig7,8, Jan Sobesky1,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: arterial spin labeling; cerebral perfusion; ischemic stroke; outcome prediction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30912272 PMCID: PMC6520295 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
Comparison of characteristics for patients with good or poor early outcome
|
All patients |
Good outcome mRS 0–2 |
Poor outcome mRS 3–6 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (IQR), years | 70 (58–77) | 69 (58–75) | 76 (68–82) | 0.083 |
| Female, | 15 (39) | 12 (43) | 3 (30) | 0.709 |
| 3 Tesla, | 22 (58) | 18 (64) | 4 (40) | 0.267 |
| Onset to imaging time, median (IQR), hr | 67 (41–109) | 76 (45–107) | 44 (32–124) | 0.334 |
| NIHSS on admission, median (IQR) | 4 (1–7) | 4 (1–8) | 5 (2–7) | 0.662 |
| NIHSS at discharge, median (IQR) | 1 (0–3) | 0 (0–2) | 2 (1–4) | 0.020 |
| mRS at discharge, median (IQR) | 2 (0–3) | 1 (0–2) | 3 (3–4) | <0.001 |
| Intravenous thrombolysis and/or endovascular recanalization, | 11 (29) | 9 (32) | 2 (20) | 0.690 |
| Severe stenosis or occlusion, | 13 (34) | 7 (25) | 6 (60) | 0.062 |
| Prior stroke history, | 19 (50) | 14 (50) | 5 (50) | 1.000 |
Mann–Whitney U test, exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Fisher's exact test; exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Representative ASL‐CBF and ASL‐BAT maps, corresponding DWI, and a summary of symptoms are displayed. Colorbars for ASL‐CBF and ASL‐BAT maps show signal intensities, not absolute perfusion values. (a) Scattered DWI lesions and a hemispheric hypoperfusion without ASL‐BAT alterations. A 75‐year‐old‐male patient presenting with right‐sided hemiparesis and aphasia, NIHSS of 8 at admission, treated with intravenous thrombolysis. MRI (3T) after 49 hours revealed a hypoperfusion within the left MCA territory: rCBF = 66%. Patient was discharged with NIHSS = 1 and mRS = 2. (b) Large DWI lesion with an ipsilateral delay in bolus arrival (ASL‐BAT map), a hypoperfusion, and an ATDA in the ASL‐CBF map. A 38‐year‐old‐female patient presenting with a left‐sided sensorimotor hemisyndrome due to a dissection and occlusion of the right carotid artery. NIHSS of 4 at admission. MRI (3T) after 4 days shows hypoperfusion and delayed blood flow (ATDA) in the affected right MCA territory. rCBF = n/a due to ATDA. Patient was discharged with NIHSS = 4 and mRS = 2. (c) DWI lesion within the posterior MCA territory with a corresponding ASL‐CBF hyperperfusion and no ASL‐BAT alterations. A 56‐year‐old‐male patient presenting with right‐sided hemiparesis and aphasia, NIHSS of 19 at admission, intravenous thrombolysis, and successful endovascular recanalization of a M2‐MCA occlusion. MRI (3T) at 44 hours after onset revealed a focal hyperperfusion corresponding to the DWI lesion: rCBF = 146%. Patient was discharged with NIHSS = 2 and mRS = 0. (d) Bilateral DWI lesions and asymmetric ASL‐CBF signal. This patient was excluded. A 73‐year‐old‐female patient presenting with left‐sided hemiplegia, dysarthria and neglect, NIHSS of 16 at admission, treated with intravenous thrombolysis. MRI (1.5T) after 53 hours revealed both bilateral ASL and DWI lesions without lateralization. Thus, this patient was excluded from quantitative analyses. He was discharged with NIHSS = 2 and mRS = 1
Comparison of qualitative imaging parameters for patients with good or poor early outcome
|
All patients |
Good outcome mRS 0–2 |
Poor outcome mRS 3–6 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality ASL‐CBF map, | 0.167 | |||
| 1 very good | 3 (8) | 2 (7) | 1 (10) | |
| 2 good | 27 (71) | 22 (79) | 5 (50) | |
| 3 sufficient | 8 (21) | 4 (14) | 4 (40) | |
| Quality ASL‐BAT map, | 0.486 | |||
| 1 very good | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 | |
| 2 good | 22 (58) | 18 (64) | 4 (40) | |
| 3 sufficient | 13 (34) | 8 (29) | 5 (50) | |
| 4 uninterpretable | 2 (5) | 1 (4) | 1 (10) | |
| Asymmetry ASL‐CBF, | 32 (84) | 23 (82) | 9 (90) | 1.000 |
| Asymmetry ASL‐BAT, | 24 (63) | 14 (50) | 10 (100) | 0.006 |
| ATDA, | 8 (21) | 4 (14) | 4 (40) | 0.170 |
| Lacunar DWI lesion, | 20 (53) | 17 (61) | 3 (30) | 0.144 |
| Infarction in capsula or thalamus, | 8 (21) | 7 (25) | 1 (10) | 0.662 |
| DWI lesion in left hemisphere, | 23 (61) | 18 (64) | 5 (50) | 0.473 |
| DWI = ASL, | 6 (16) | 5 (18) | 1 (10) | 0.885 |
| DWI < ASL, | 23 (60) | 17 (61) | 6 (60) | |
| DWI > ASL, | 9 (24) | 6 (21) | 3 (30) |
Mann–Whitney U test, exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Fisher's exact test; exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
χ2 test; exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Comparison of quantitative imaging parameters for patients with good or poor early outcome
|
All patients |
Good outcome mRS 0–2 |
Poor outcome mRS 3–6 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevant perfusion alteration, | 19/38 (50) | 13 (46) | 6 (60) | 0.714 |
| Hypoperfusion, | 12/38 (32) | 7/12 (58) | 5/12 (42) | 0.333 |
| Hyperperfusion, | 7/38 (18) | 6/7 (86) | 1/7 (14) | 0.333 |
| Volume of DWI lesion, median (IQR), mL | 1.3 (0.4–9.9) | 0.6 (0.3–9.5) | 5.1 (0.9–17.2) | 0.130 |
| Volume of relevant perfusion alteration ( | 53 (16–65) | 53 (14–66) | 53 (16–71) | 0.765 |
| Volume of hypoperfusion ( | 63 (51–92) | 62 (50–88) | 64 (33–95) | 1.000 |
| Volume of hyperperfusion ( | 48 (32–59) | 45 (29–61) | 48 | 1.000 |
| Relative CBF (rCBF), median (IQR) | 0.95 (0.67–1.15) | 1.00 (0.71–1.22) | 0.82 (0.44–1.07) | 0.177 |
Mann–Whitney U test, exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Fisher's exact test; exact, two‐sided p‐value given, level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Figure 2Additional predictive value of arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion imaging. Receiver‐operating‐characteristic (ROC) analysis with area‐under‐the‐curve (AUC) and 95% CI of both predictive models: Model 1 (DWI, grey diamonds) and Model 2 (DWI+ASL, open circles). Model 1, which is based on recent clinical standard, is outperformed by Model 2, in which additional ASL perfusion information (hypo‐/hyperperfusion) is added