No-reflow phenomenon in stroke patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of clinical data.

No-reflow macrovascular microvascular perfusion imaging reperfusion

Journal

International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society
ISSN: 1747-4949
Titre abrégé: Int J Stroke
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101274068

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Jun 2023
Historique:
pubmed: 26 5 2023
medline: 26 5 2023
entrez: 26 5 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The no-reflow phenomenon refers to the absence of microvascular reperfusion despite macrovascular reperfusion. The aim of this analysis was to summarize the available clinical evidence on no-reflow in patients with acute ischemic stroke. A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of clinical data on definition, rates, and impact of the no-reflow phenomenon after reperfusion therapy was carried out. A predefined research strategy was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) model and was used to screen for articles in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase up to 8 September 2022. Whenever possible, quantitative data were summarized using a random-effects model. Thirteen studies with a total of 719 patients were included in the final analysis. Most studies (n = 10/13) used variations of the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale to evaluate macrovascular reperfusion, whereas microvascular reperfusion and no-reflow were mostly assessed on perfusion maps (n = 9/13). In one-third of stroke patients with successful macrovascular reperfusion (29%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 21-37%), the no-reflow phenomenon was observed. Pooled analysis showed that no-reflow was consistently associated with reduced rates of functional independence (odds ratio (OR), 0.21, 95% CI, 0.15-0.31). The definition of no-reflow varied substantially across studies, but it appears to be a common phenomenon. Some of the no-reflow cases may simply represent remaining vessel occlusions, and it remains unclear whether no-reflow is an epiphenomenon of the infarcted parenchyma or causes infarction. Future studies should focus on standardizing the definition of no-reflow with more consistent definitions of successful macrovascular reperfusion and experimental set-ups that could detect the causality of the observed findings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND UNASSIGNED
The no-reflow phenomenon refers to the absence of microvascular reperfusion despite macrovascular reperfusion.
AIM UNASSIGNED
The aim of this analysis was to summarize the available clinical evidence on no-reflow in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
METHODS UNASSIGNED
A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of clinical data on definition, rates, and impact of the no-reflow phenomenon after reperfusion therapy was carried out. A predefined research strategy was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) model and was used to screen for articles in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase up to 8 September 2022. Whenever possible, quantitative data were summarized using a random-effects model.
RESULTS UNASSIGNED
Thirteen studies with a total of 719 patients were included in the final analysis. Most studies (n = 10/13) used variations of the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale to evaluate macrovascular reperfusion, whereas microvascular reperfusion and no-reflow were mostly assessed on perfusion maps (n = 9/13). In one-third of stroke patients with successful macrovascular reperfusion (29%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 21-37%), the no-reflow phenomenon was observed. Pooled analysis showed that no-reflow was consistently associated with reduced rates of functional independence (odds ratio (OR), 0.21, 95% CI, 0.15-0.31).
CONCLUSION UNASSIGNED
The definition of no-reflow varied substantially across studies, but it appears to be a common phenomenon. Some of the no-reflow cases may simply represent remaining vessel occlusions, and it remains unclear whether no-reflow is an epiphenomenon of the infarcted parenchyma or causes infarction. Future studies should focus on standardizing the definition of no-reflow with more consistent definitions of successful macrovascular reperfusion and experimental set-ups that could detect the causality of the observed findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37231702
doi: 10.1177/17474930231180434
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

17474930231180434

Auteurs

Adnan Mujanovic (A)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Felix Ng (F)

Department of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Department of Neurology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.

Thomas R Meinel (TR)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Tomas Dobrocky (T)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Eike I Piechowiak (EI)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Christoph C Kurmann (CC)

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

David J Seiffge (DJ)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Susanne Wegener (S)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Roland Wiest (R)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Lukas Meyer (L)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Jens Fiehler (J)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Jean Marc Olivot (JM)

Department of Neurology and Clinical Investigation Center, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Marc Ribo (M)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

Thanh N Nguyen (TN)

Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Jan Gralla (J)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Bruce Cv Campbell (BC)

Department of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Urs Fischer (U)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Johannes Kaesmacher (J)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH