Benefit from revascularization after thrombectomy according to FLAIR vascular hyperintensities-DWI mismatch.
Adult
Aged
Angiography, Digital Subtraction
/ methods
Biomarkers
Collateral Circulation
/ physiology
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Stroke
/ diagnostic imaging
Thrombectomy
/ methods
Thrombolytic Therapy
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Collateral circulation
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prognosis
Stroke
Thrombectomy
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
10
10
2018
accepted:
08
02
2019
revised:
28
01
2019
pubmed:
25
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
24
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We tested whether FLAIR vascular hyperintensities (FVH)-DWI mismatch could identify candidates for thrombectomy most likely to benefit from revascularization. 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. 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. 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. • 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30903341
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06094-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06094-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5567-5576Références
Stroke. 1992 May;23(5):646-52
pubmed: 1579960
Front Neurol. 2017 Jun 19;8:272
pubmed: 28674513
Stroke. 2012 Nov;43(11):2986-91
pubmed: 22996954
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;41(1-2):27-34
pubmed: 26579719
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012;34(5-6):376-84
pubmed: 23207238
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):750-753
pubmed: 29382803
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Feb;36(2):269-74
pubmed: 25190202
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Mar;30(3):564-8
pubmed: 19022866
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110
pubmed: 29367334
Arch Neurol. 2012 Nov;69(11):1462-8
pubmed: 22893218
Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2036-40
pubmed: 24876081
Stroke. 2016 Feb;47(2):424-7
pubmed: 26732567
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0137292
pubmed: 26327519
J Stroke. 2017 May;19(2):121-130
pubmed: 28592779
Eur Neurol. 2012;68(4):214-20
pubmed: 22964844
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;89(9):910-917
pubmed: 29519899
Neurology. 2009 Mar 31;72(13):1134-9
pubmed: 19211928
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;79(6):625-9
pubmed: 18077482
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Jan;39(1):77-83
pubmed: 29074634
J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Dec;48(12):1503-10
pubmed: 8543964
Radiology. 2015 Mar;274(3):851-8
pubmed: 25559232
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Oct;15(11):1138-47
pubmed: 27567239
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):675-681
pubmed: 29459394
Stroke. 2016 Nov;47(11):2763-2769
pubmed: 27659851
Neurology. 2004 Jun 22;62(12):2187-92
pubmed: 15210880
Stroke. 2011 Mar;42(3):693-9
pubmed: 21233472
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):786-91
pubmed: 21067881
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(10):1771-5
pubmed: 21051516
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Mar;29(3):582-7
pubmed: 18337393