Impact of eloquent motor cortex-tissue reperfusion beyond the traditional thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scoring after thrombectomy.
angiography
blood flow
brain
stroke
thrombectomy
Journal
Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
11
09
2020
revised:
03
11
2020
accepted:
05
11
2020
pubmed:
15
1
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
14
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Targeted eloquence-based tissue reperfusion within the primary motor cortex may have a differential effect on disability as compared with traditional volume-based (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, TICI) reperfusion after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in the setting of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We explored the impact of eloquent reperfusion (ER) within primary motor cortex (PMC) on clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS) in AIS patients undergoing EVT. ER-PMC was defined as presence of flow on final digital subtraction angiography (DSA) within four main cortical branches, supplying the PMC (middle cerebral artery (MCA) - precentral, central, postcentral; anterior cerebral artery (ACA) - medial frontal branch arising from callosomarginal or pericallosal arteries) and graded as absent (0), partial (1), and complete (2). Prospectively collected data from two centers were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the impact of ER-PMC on 90-day disability (mRS) among patients with anterior circulation occlusion who achieved partial reperfusion (TICI 2a and 2b). Among the 125 patients who met the study criteria, ER-PMC distribution was: absent (0) in 19/125 (15.2%); partial (1) in 52/125 (41.6%), and complete (2) in 54/125 (43.2%). TICI 2b was achieved in 102/125 (81.6%) and ER-PMC was substantially higher in those patients (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, in addition to age and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, ER-PMC had a profound independent impact on 90-day disability (OR 6.10, P=0.001 for ER-PMC 1 vs 0 and OR 9.87, P<0.001 for ER-PMC 2 vs 0), while the extent of total partial reperfusion (TICI 2b vs 2a) was not related to 90-day mRS. Eloquent PMC-tissue reperfusion is a key determinant of functional outcome, with a greater impact than volume-based (TICI) degree of partial reperfusion alone. PMC-targeted revascularization among patients with partial reperfusion may further diminish post-stroke disability after EVT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Targeted eloquence-based tissue reperfusion within the primary motor cortex may have a differential effect on disability as compared with traditional volume-based (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, TICI) reperfusion after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in the setting of acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
METHODS
METHODS
We explored the impact of eloquent reperfusion (ER) within primary motor cortex (PMC) on clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS) in AIS patients undergoing EVT. ER-PMC was defined as presence of flow on final digital subtraction angiography (DSA) within four main cortical branches, supplying the PMC (middle cerebral artery (MCA) - precentral, central, postcentral; anterior cerebral artery (ACA) - medial frontal branch arising from callosomarginal or pericallosal arteries) and graded as absent (0), partial (1), and complete (2). Prospectively collected data from two centers were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the impact of ER-PMC on 90-day disability (mRS) among patients with anterior circulation occlusion who achieved partial reperfusion (TICI 2a and 2b).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 125 patients who met the study criteria, ER-PMC distribution was: absent (0) in 19/125 (15.2%); partial (1) in 52/125 (41.6%), and complete (2) in 54/125 (43.2%). TICI 2b was achieved in 102/125 (81.6%) and ER-PMC was substantially higher in those patients (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, in addition to age and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, ER-PMC had a profound independent impact on 90-day disability (OR 6.10, P=0.001 for ER-PMC 1 vs 0 and OR 9.87, P<0.001 for ER-PMC 2 vs 0), while the extent of total partial reperfusion (TICI 2b vs 2a) was not related to 90-day mRS.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Eloquent PMC-tissue reperfusion is a key determinant of functional outcome, with a greater impact than volume-based (TICI) degree of partial reperfusion alone. PMC-targeted revascularization among patients with partial reperfusion may further diminish post-stroke disability after EVT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33443113
pii: neurintsurg-2020-016834
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016834
pmc: PMC8526878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
990-994Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2285-95
pubmed: 25882376
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
Stroke. 2003 Aug;34(8):e109-37
pubmed: 12869717
Stroke. 2018 May;49(5):1189-1196
pubmed: 29626134
N Engl J Med. 1985 Apr 4;312(14):932-6
pubmed: 4038784
Front Neurol. 2019 Aug 08;10:818
pubmed: 31440198
World Neurosurg. 2019 Mar;123:e604-e608
pubmed: 30529522
Stroke. 2011 Aug;42(8):2356-62
pubmed: 21719772
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306
pubmed: 25882510
J Neurosurg. 1986 Oct;65(4):476-83
pubmed: 3760956
Stroke. 2014 Jun;45(6):1695-702
pubmed: 24781084
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Oct;28(8):751-60
pubmed: 24519021
Stroke. 2013 Sep;44(9):2509-12
pubmed: 23920017
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 May;11(5):433-438
pubmed: 30194109
Stroke. 2004 Dec;35(12):2848-54
pubmed: 15514171
Stroke. 2002 Sep;33(9):2243-6
pubmed: 12215594
Ann Neurol. 2015 Dec;78(6):860-70
pubmed: 26289123
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Mar;12(3):279-282
pubmed: 31243066
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):660-666
pubmed: 29459390
Stroke. 2007 Jan;38(1):194-7
pubmed: 17122428
Neuroradiology. 2011 Oct;53(10):763-71
pubmed: 21789602
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
J Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;127(6):1461-1466
pubmed: 29027861
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Oct 17;70(16):2048-2090
pubmed: 28943066
Stroke. 2018 Jul;49(7):1662-1668
pubmed: 29915125
Stroke. 2017 Sep;48(9):2488-2493
pubmed: 28775136
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;35(6):560-5
pubmed: 23838753
Stroke. 2011 Sep;42(9):2645-50
pubmed: 21852620
Scott Med J. 1957 Jun;2(6):254-68
pubmed: 13432842
Front Neurol. 2020 Feb 18;11:83
pubmed: 32132966
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):3569-3577
pubmed: 31648631
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Aug;12(8):794-797
pubmed: 32024783
Stroke. 2012 Apr;43(4):1171-8
pubmed: 22426314
Surg Neurol. 2005;64 Suppl 2:S48-52
pubmed: 16256841
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jan;11(1):9-13
pubmed: 29802163
Stroke. 2005 Nov;36(11):2400-3
pubmed: 16224088
Interv Neuroradiol. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):21-7
pubmed: 24556296
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Feb;28(2):382-4
pubmed: 17297017
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):967-73
pubmed: 17272772
World Neurosurg. 2020 May;137:425-428.e1
pubmed: 32035197
Clin Neurosurg. 1979;26:145-208
pubmed: 544123
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2366
pubmed: 26065306
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Oct;9(10):922-928
pubmed: 27688267
Stroke. 2013 Sep;44(9):2650-63
pubmed: 23920012