| Literature DB >> 33218307 |
Juan Wang1,2, Li-Jun Pan1, Bin Zhou1,2, Jin-Yan Zu1,2, Yi-Xu Zhao1, Yang Li2, Wan-Qiu Zhu1, Lei Li2, Jian-Rong Xu1, Zeng-Ai Chen3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a noninvasive perfusion-weighted MRI technique, arterial spin-labeling (ASL) was becoming increasingly used to evaluate cerebral hemodynamics in many studies. The relation between ASL-MRI and crossed cerebellar diaschisis (CCD) was rarely discussed. In this study, the aim of our study was to assess the performance of ASL-MRI in the detection of crossed cerebellar diaschisis after stroke in compared with single-photon emission CT (SPECT).Entities:
Keywords: Arterial spin-labeling; Crossed cerebellar diaschisis; Single-photon emission CT; Stroke
Year: 2020 PMID: 33218307 PMCID: PMC7678313 DOI: 10.1186/s12868-020-00595-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurosci ISSN: 1471-2202 Impact factor: 3.288
Demographic characteristics of CCD (+) and CCD (−) subjects
| Characteristics | ALL (51) | CCD + (17) | CCD − (34) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 62.16 ± 12.16 | 62.5 ± 12.04 | 61.47 ± 13.10 | 0.78 | / |
| Male sex-(%) | 35 (68.6%) | 10 (58.8%) | 25 (73.5%) | 0.286 | / |
| Infarct volumne (mm3) | 10559 ± 20431 | 23953 ± 30124 | 3861 ± 6242 | 0.006* | / |
| Stroke to SPECT imaging (d) | 5.04 ± 3.83 | 5.27 ± 2.73 | 4.93 ± 4.30 | 0.131 | / |
| Stroke to ASL imaging (d) | 5.34 ± 3.00 | 5.82 ± 3.41 | 5.10 ± 2.79 | 0.596 | / |
| Admission NIHSS | 3.12 ± 2.16 | 4.29 ± 2.71 | 2.52 ± 1.61 | 0.021* | 0.272b |
| Discharge NIHSS | 2.53 ± 2.19 | 4.00 ± 2.52 | 1.79 ± 1.64 | 0.002* | < 0.0001c, # |
| AISPECT | 0.07 ± 0.09 | 0.1 ± 0.08 | 0.02 ± 0.05 | < 0.0001* | / |
| AI | 0.09 ± 0.12 | 0.19 ± 0.10 | 0.03 ± 0.10 | < 0.0001* | 0.484d |
Values are mean ± standard deviation or number of patients
CCD, crossed cerebellar diaschisis; NIHSS, Initial National Institute of Health Stroke Scale; AI, asymmetry index; CBF, cerebral blood flow; SPECT, single-photon emission CT; ASL, arterial spin-labeling MR imaging
*, # The significant level was defined as P < 0.05
aComparison of parameters in CCD ( +) and CCD (−)
b Comparison of NIHSS score at admission and discharge in CCD (+) subjects
c Comparison of NIHSS score at admission and discharge in CCD (−) subjects
dcomparison of AISPECT and AIASL
Comparison of CBF, CBF in bilateral cerebellum
| Group | Parameters | Ipsilateral cerebellum | Contralateral cerebellum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCD + | CBF | 83.35 ± 24.04 | 66.49 ± 18.83 | < 0.0001* |
| CBF | 39.86 ± 9.43 | 33.34 ± 9.87 | < 0.0001* | |
| CCD− | CBF | 75.18 ± 27.73 | 73.51 ± 25.9 | 0.007* |
| CBF | 42.36 ± 10.16 | 40.99 ± 10.09 | 0.063 |
CBF, cerebral blood flow; SPECT, single-photon emission CT; ASL, arterial spin-labeling MR imaging
Values are mean ± standard deviation. * The significant level was defined as P < 0.05
Fig. 1A 62‑year‑old man with a history of sudden onset left-sided weakness for 7 days. a Hyperintensity stroke lesion can be recognized in the right temporal lobe on diffusion weighted image. b SPECT and c ASL maps showing hypoperfusion in the same lesion. d SPECT and e ASL images showing hypoperfusion in the contralateral cerebellum hemisphere
The results of Person’s correlation between various parameters
| Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|
| AI | 0.351 | 0.011* |
| AI | 0.372 | 0.007* |
| AI | 0.443 | 0.001* |
| AI | 0.426 | 0.002* |
| CBF | 0.201 | 0.043* |
| AI | 0.467 | 0.001* |
AI, asymmetry index; CBF, cerebral blood flow; SPECT, single-photon emission CT; ASL, arterial spin-labeling MR imaging; NIHSS, Initial National Institute of Health Stroke Scale
*The significant level was defined as P < 0.05
Fig. 2The scatter plot for relationships between CBF and CBF (a) (r = 0.201, p = 0.043) and AI and AI (b) (r = 0.467, p = 0.001)
Fig. 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for AI vs AI