4.7 Article

Computed Tomographic Perfusion to Predict Response to Recanalization in Ischemic Stroke

Journal

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 6, Pages 849-856

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.24953

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the utility of computed tomographic (CT) perfusion for selection of patients for endovascular therapy up to 18 hours after symptom onset. Methods: We conducted a multicenter cohort study of consecutive acute stroke patients scheduled to undergo endovascular therapy within 90 minutes after a baseline CT perfusion. Patients were classified as target mismatch if they had a small ischemic core and a large penumbra on their baseline CT perfusion. Reperfusion was defined as >50% reduction in critical hypoperfusion between the baseline CT perfusion and the 36-hour follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Of the 201 patients enrolled, 190 patients with an adequate baseline CT perfusion study who underwent angiography were included (mean age = 66 years, median NIH Stroke Scale [NIHSS] = 16, median time from symptom onset to endovascular therapy = 5.2 hours). Rate of reperfusion was 89%. In patients with target mismatch (n = 131), reperfusion was associated with higher odds of favorable clinical response, defined as an improvement of >= 8 points on the NIHSS (83% vs 44%; p = 0.002, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 6.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-0.9). This association did not differ between patients treated within 6 hours (OR = 6.4, 95% CI = 1.5-27.8) and those treated > 6 hours after symptom onset (OR = 13.7, 95% CI = 1.4-140). Interpretation: The robust association between endovascular reperfusion and good outcome among patients with the CT perfusion target mismatch profile treated up to 18 hours after symptom onset supports a randomized trial of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available