Perfusion Imaging to Select Patients with Large Ischemic Core for Mechanical Thrombectomy.

Acute stroke Endovascular treatment Ischemic stroke Perfusion imaging Thrombectomy

Journal

Journal of stroke
ISSN: 2287-6391
Titre abrégé: J Stroke
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101602023

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2020
Historique:
received: 25 10 2019
accepted: 28 04 2020
entrez: 9 7 2020
pubmed: 9 7 2020
medline: 9 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Patients with acute ischemic stroke, proximal vessel occlusion and a large ischemic core at presentation are commonly not considered for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). We tested the hypothesis that in patients with baseline large infarct cores, identification of remaining penumbral tissue using perfusion imaging would translate to better outcomes after MT. This was a multicenter, retrospective, core lab adjudicated, cohort study of adult patients with proximal vessel occlusion, a large ischemic core volume (diffusion weighted imaging volume ≥70 mL), with pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging perfusion, treated with MT (2015 to 2018) or medical care alone (controls; before 2015). Primary outcome measure was 3-month favorable outcome (defined as a modified Rankin Scale of 0-3). Core perfusion mismatch ratio (CPMR) was defined as the volume of critically hypo-perfused tissue (Tmax >6 seconds) divided by the core volume. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors that were independently associated with clinical outcomes. Outputs are displayed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 172 patients were included (MT n=130; Control n=42; mean age 69.0±15.4 years; 36% females). Mean core-volume and CPMR were 102.3±36.7 and 1.8±0.7 mL, respectively. As hypothesized, receiving MT was associated with increased probability of favorable outcome and functional independence, as CPMR increased, a difference becoming statistically significant above a mismatch-ratio of 1.72. Similarly, receiving MT was also associated with favorable outcome in the subgroup of 74 patients with CPMR >1.7 (aOR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.24 to 53.11; P=0.028). Overall (prior to stratification by CPMR) 73 (42.4%) patients had a favorable outcome at 3 months, with no difference amongst groups. s In patients currently deemed ineligible for MT due to large infarct ischemic cores at baseline, CPMR identifies a subgroup strongly benefiting from MT. Prospective studies are warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
Patients with acute ischemic stroke, proximal vessel occlusion and a large ischemic core at presentation are commonly not considered for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). We tested the hypothesis that in patients with baseline large infarct cores, identification of remaining penumbral tissue using perfusion imaging would translate to better outcomes after MT.
METHODS METHODS
This was a multicenter, retrospective, core lab adjudicated, cohort study of adult patients with proximal vessel occlusion, a large ischemic core volume (diffusion weighted imaging volume ≥70 mL), with pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging perfusion, treated with MT (2015 to 2018) or medical care alone (controls; before 2015). Primary outcome measure was 3-month favorable outcome (defined as a modified Rankin Scale of 0-3). Core perfusion mismatch ratio (CPMR) was defined as the volume of critically hypo-perfused tissue (Tmax >6 seconds) divided by the core volume. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors that were independently associated with clinical outcomes. Outputs are displayed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 172 patients were included (MT n=130; Control n=42; mean age 69.0±15.4 years; 36% females). Mean core-volume and CPMR were 102.3±36.7 and 1.8±0.7 mL, respectively. As hypothesized, receiving MT was associated with increased probability of favorable outcome and functional independence, as CPMR increased, a difference becoming statistically significant above a mismatch-ratio of 1.72. Similarly, receiving MT was also associated with favorable outcome in the subgroup of 74 patients with CPMR >1.7 (aOR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.24 to 53.11; P=0.028). Overall (prior to stratification by CPMR) 73 (42.4%) patients had a favorable outcome at 3 months, with no difference amongst groups.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
s In patients currently deemed ineligible for MT due to large infarct ischemic cores at baseline, CPMR identifies a subgroup strongly benefiting from MT. Prospective studies are warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32635686
pii: jos.2019.02908
doi: 10.5853/jos.2019.02908
pmc: PMC7341008
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

225-233

Références

J Neurointerv Surg. 2014 Mar;6(2):83-6
pubmed: 23390038
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jun;11(6):535-538
pubmed: 31152058
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jul;11(7):664-669
pubmed: 30415223
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
JAMA Neurol. 2017 Jan 1;74(1):34-40
pubmed: 27820620
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):750-753
pubmed: 29382803
Stroke. 2019 Feb;50(2):365-372
pubmed: 30612537
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jan;95(2):e2430
pubmed: 26765425
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):895-904
pubmed: 30264728
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Jan;10(1):5-9
pubmed: 29079663
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):836-837
pubmed: 30264719
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Oct;11(10):860-7
pubmed: 22954705
Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2510-6
pubmed: 26251252
Stroke. 2019 Apr;50(4):880-888
pubmed: 30827193
Stroke. 2019 May;50(5):1164-1171
pubmed: 31009354
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan;18(1):46-55
pubmed: 30413385
Stroke. 1999 Nov;30(11):2280-4
pubmed: 10548658
Stroke. 2003 Jun;34(6):1425-30
pubmed: 12738899
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 29;:
pubmed: 31355873
Stroke. 2017 Apr;48(4):963-969
pubmed: 28235960
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):659-664
pubmed: 30744542
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110
pubmed: 29367334
Neurology. 2016 Jul 19;87(3):249-56
pubmed: 27316243
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852

Auteurs

Basile Kerleroux (B)

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.

Kevin Janot (K)

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.

Cyril Dargazanli (C)

Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Center of Montpellier, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, Montpellier, France.

Dimitri Daly-Eraya (D)

Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Center of Montpellier, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, Montpellier, France.

Wagih Ben-Hassen (W)

Centre Hospitalier Sainte Anne, Neuroradiology Department, Paris University, INSERM U1266, Psychiatry and Neurosciences Institute of Paris, Paris, France.

François Zhu (F)

University Hospital of Nancy, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, INSERM U1254, Nancy, France.

Benjamin Gory (B)

University Hospital of Nancy, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, INSERM U1254, Nancy, France.

Jean François Hak (JF)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Timone Hospital, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France.

Charline Perot (C)

Neurology Department, Timone Hospital, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France.

Lili Detraz (L)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France.

Romain Bourcier (R)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France.

Aymeric Rouchaud (A)

Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Dupuytren University Hospital, Limoges, France.

Géraud Forestier (G)

Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Dupuytren University Hospital, Limoges, France.

Joseph Benzakoun (J)

Centre Hospitalier Sainte Anne, Neuroradiology Department, Paris University, INSERM U1266, Psychiatry and Neurosciences Institute of Paris, Paris, France.

Gaultier Marnat (G)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Pellegrin Hospital-University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Florent Gariel (F)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Pellegrin Hospital-University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Pasquale Mordasini (P)

Institute of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology and Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Johannes Kaesmacher (J)

Institute of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology and Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Grégoire Boulouis (G)

Centre Hospitalier Sainte Anne, Neuroradiology Department, Paris University, INSERM U1266, Psychiatry and Neurosciences Institute of Paris, Paris, France.
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.

Classifications MeSH