Ischemic Lesion Growth in Patients with a Persistent Target Mismatch After Large Vessel Occlusion.
CT perfusion collateral index
CT perfusion image
Good collateral flow
Little core growth
Persistent large penumbra
Journal
Clinical neuroradiology
ISSN: 1869-1447
Titre abrégé: Clin Neuroradiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101526693
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
11
05
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
17
3
2023
entrez:
5
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Failure to reperfuse a cerebral occlusion resulting in a persistent penumbral pattern has not been fully described. We retrospectively reviewed patients with anterior large vessel occlusion who did not receive reperfusion, and underwent repeated perfusion imaging, with baseline imaging < 6 h after onset and follow-up scans from 16-168 h. A persistent target mismatch (PTM) was defined as core volume of < 100 mL, mismatch ratio > 1.2, and mismatch volume > 10 mL on follow-up imaging. Patients were divided into PTM or non-PTM groups. Ischemic core and penumbral volumes were compared between baseline and follow-up imaging between the two groups, and collateral flow status assessed using CT perfusion collateral index. A total of 25 patients (14 PTM and 11 non-PTM) were enrolled in the study. Median core volumes increased slightly in the PTM group, from 22 to 36 ml. There was a much greater increase in the non-PTM group, from 57 to 190 ml. Penumbral volumes were stable in the PTM group from a median of 79 ml at baseline to 88 ml at follow-up, whereas penumbra was reduced in the non-PTM group, from 120 to 0 ml. Collateral flow status was also better in the PTM group and the median collateral index was 33% compared with 44% in the non-PTM group (p = 0.043). Multiple patients were identified with limited core growth and large penumbra (persistent target mismatch) > 16 h after stroke onset, likely due to more favorable collateral flow.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Failure to reperfuse a cerebral occlusion resulting in a persistent penumbral pattern has not been fully described.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed patients with anterior large vessel occlusion who did not receive reperfusion, and underwent repeated perfusion imaging, with baseline imaging < 6 h after onset and follow-up scans from 16-168 h. A persistent target mismatch (PTM) was defined as core volume of < 100 mL, mismatch ratio > 1.2, and mismatch volume > 10 mL on follow-up imaging. Patients were divided into PTM or non-PTM groups. Ischemic core and penumbral volumes were compared between baseline and follow-up imaging between the two groups, and collateral flow status assessed using CT perfusion collateral index.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 25 patients (14 PTM and 11 non-PTM) were enrolled in the study. Median core volumes increased slightly in the PTM group, from 22 to 36 ml. There was a much greater increase in the non-PTM group, from 57 to 190 ml. Penumbral volumes were stable in the PTM group from a median of 79 ml at baseline to 88 ml at follow-up, whereas penumbra was reduced in the non-PTM group, from 120 to 0 ml. Collateral flow status was also better in the PTM group and the median collateral index was 33% compared with 44% in the non-PTM group (p = 0.043).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple patients were identified with limited core growth and large penumbra (persistent target mismatch) > 16 h after stroke onset, likely due to more favorable collateral flow.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35789284
doi: 10.1007/s00062-022-01180-z
pii: 10.1007/s00062-022-01180-z
pmc: PMC10014761
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41-48Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Neurology. 2021 Jan 12;96(2):e161-e170
pubmed: 33262233
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):682-689
pubmed: 30734042
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
Stroke. 2021 Jan;52(1):57-69
pubmed: 33280550
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
Stroke. 2020 Mar;51(3):1006-1009
pubmed: 31948385
J Neuroimaging. 2017 Nov;27(6):602-606
pubmed: 28414895
Radiology. 2015 Mar;274(3):851-8
pubmed: 25559232
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):632-638
pubmed: 30726184
Stroke. 2010 Jan;41(1):e34-40
pubmed: 19910542
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):768-771
pubmed: 29367336
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015 Feb;35(2):206-12
pubmed: 25370859
Ann Neurol. 2018 Oct;84(4):616-620
pubmed: 30168180
Stroke. 2017 Sep;48(9):2621-2627
pubmed: 28794271
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2285-95
pubmed: 25882376
Stroke. 2018 Sep;49(9):2102-2107
pubmed: 30354992
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Nov;10(11):1039-1042
pubmed: 29807887
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 10;6:20932
pubmed: 26860196
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2163-2167
pubmed: 31303153
Eur J Neurol. 2013 May;20(5):795-802
pubmed: 23278976
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2137708
pubmed: 34878550
Stroke. 2014 Mar;45(3):759-64
pubmed: 24473178
J Stroke. 2016 May;18(2):179-86
pubmed: 26915505
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
Radiology. 2016 Jun;279(3):876-87
pubmed: 26785041
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Mar;33(3):545-9
pubmed: 22194372
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):754-757
pubmed: 30735466
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):543-50
pubmed: 23264345
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306
pubmed: 25882510
JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 10;:
pubmed: 32777014
Brain. 2009 Aug;132(Pt 8):2231-8
pubmed: 19509116