| Literature DB >> 32418242 |
Andrew Bivard1, Timothy Kleinig2, Leonid Churilov3, Christopher Levi3, Longting Lin4, Xin Cheng5, Chushuang Chen4, Richard Aviv6, Philip M C Choi7, Neil J Spratt4, Kenneth Butcher8, Qiang Dong5, Mark Parsons1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the diagnostic utility of existing predictors of any hemorrhagic transformation (HT) and compare them with new perfusion imaging permeability measures in ischemic stroke patients receiving alteplase only.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32418242 PMCID: PMC7496077 DOI: 10.1002/ana.25785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Neurol ISSN: 0364-5134 Impact factor: 10.422
Patient Clinical and Imaging Characteristics
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 66 (15) | 67 (13) | 0.422 |
| Time to scanning (min) | 105 (49) | 99 (51) | 0.481 |
| Baseline NIHSS | 14 (6) | 8 (5) | <0.001 |
| Baseline perfusion lesion volume (DT3) (ml) | 94 (69) | 78 (65) | 0.011 |
| Baseline ischemic core volume (CBF 30%) (ml) | 42 (43) | 22 (17) | <0.001 |
| Very low CBV (ml) | 6 (9) | 3 (7) | 0.163 |
| Tmax 14 s volume (ml) | 23 (33) | 15 (24) | 0.107 |
| 24 h NIHSS | 12 (8) | 8 (7) | <0.001 |
| 90 day mRS | 3 (1) | 2 (1) | <0.001 |
| 24 h core volume: all patients (ml) | 56 (42) | 27 (18) | <0.001 |
| 24 h core volume: MRI follow‐up patients (ml) | 38 (21) | 19 (11) | 0.033 |
The baseline demographic information was compared between patients with and without a hemorrhagic transformation at 24 h. There were significant differences between the baseline NIHSS, baseline perfusion lesion volume, baseline ischemic core volume, and treatments. There were also significant differences in the 24 h NIHSS, 3 mo mRS, and 24 h core volume between study groups. All study patients were treated with intravenous alteplase.
CBF = cerebral blood flow; CBV = cerebral blood volume; mRS = modified Rankin scale; NIHSS = National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.
FIGURE 1The likelihood of hemorrhagic transformation with the absolute E lesion volume. With increasing E lesion volume, there was an increased likelihood of hemorrhage and an increase in the severity of hemorrhage.
Area Under the Curve and Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis of Permeability Measures for Predicting Hemorrhagic Transformation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole‐brain analysis | |||||||
|
| 20 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 76 | 0.79 | 0.067 |
| 25 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 79 | 0.82 | 0.187 | |
| 30 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 81 | 0.84 | 0.038 | |
| 35 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 80 | 0.83 | 0.073 | |
|
| 60 | 0.74 | 0.42 | 0.77 | 66 | <0.7 | 0.277 |
| 65 | 0.73 | 0.43 | 0.68 | 68 | <0.7 | 0.437 | |
| 70 | 0.73 | 0.32 | 0.77 | 71 | <0.7 | 0.394 | |
|
| 65 | 0.74 | 0.40 | 0.82 | 51 | <0.7 | 0.299 |
| 70 | 0.71 | 0.47 | 0.85 | 58 | <0.7 | 0.424 | |
| Analysis confined to within the perfusion lesion | |||||||
|
| 20 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 81 | 0.86 | <0.001 |
| 25 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 87 | 0.86 | <0.001 | |
| 30 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 91 | 0.89 | <0.001 | |
| 35 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 86 | 0.87 | 0.031 | |
|
| 60 | 0.71 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 76 | 0.67 | 0.387 |
| 65 | 0.70 | 0.47 | 0.83 | 78 | 0.59 | 0.211 | |
| 70 | 0.73 | 0.34 | 0.82 | 80 | 0.64 | 0.347 | |
|
| 65 | 0.75 | 0.40 | 0.79 | 42 | 0.68 | 0.427 |
| 70 | 0.74 | 0.54 | 0.83 | 55 | 0.66 | 0.447 | |
Each AUC represents the result for the specific threshold tested. The χ2 p value represents the comparison between different thresholds.
AUC = area under the curve.
FIGURE 2The likelihood of hemorrhagic transformation with the absolute E lesion volume restricted to the perfusion lesion (DT3 seconds). With the increasing ratio of E lesion volume to perfusion lesion volume, there was an increased likelihood of hemorrhage and an increase in the severity of hemorrhage. The overall accuracy of the predictive model was high and more reliable than absolute E lesion volume alone. However, it was unusual for an individual patient to have a whole perfusion lesion permeability E 30% lesion, and the results here represent data from a fitted risk model and represent associations rather than true individual patient risk.
FIGURE 3An example of the E permeability map output (2nd column) and a threshold E permeable map constrained within the perfusion lesion (3rd column), compared with a CTP CBF map (1st column), and the 24 hour CT/MRI (4th and 5th columns). On the E permeability map, the red represents a very prolonged contrast signal, suggesting high permeability. In the threshold map from the 3rd column, the blue area represents the E permeability >30% measure within the perfusion lesion (DT >3 seconds or Tmax >6 seconds). The ability of the E permeability maps to predict HT was significantly increased when a threshold was set at 30% and the lesion volume limited as a fraction of the perfusion lesion. In the first row, there is a small E permeability lesion, which predicted an HI1. The second row has a larger permeability lesion, but after a threshold was applied the fraction of permeability compared with the perfusion lesion was small, and only HI2 was predicted. Next, in the 3rd row, a denser permeability lesion is present, but again the volume was small and an HT2 was predicted. In the 4th row, there is a large, severe permeability lesion, and the patient went on to have a PH2. In the 5th row, the patient has a large perfusion lesion and large permeability lesion area, which developed into a PH2. The last row is an example of a patient with no permeability lesion despite a large perfusion lesion and no HT. CBF = cerebral blood flow; CT = computed tomography; CTP = CT perfusion; DT = delay time; E, extraction fraction; HI = hemorrhagic infarction; HT = hemorrhagic transformation; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; PH = parenchymal hematoma.