4.3 Article

Relationship between cerebral blood flow and clinical outcome in acute stroke

Journal

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 298-306

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000016074

Keywords

stroke; cerebral blood flow; xenon-enhanced computed tomography; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements in acute stroke and early clinical outcome. Material and Methods: The xenon-enhanced computed tomography (XeCT) CBF studies performed in 50 patients in the acute stage (within 8 h) of a hemispheric stroke were retrospectively analyzed. The mean CBF of the symptomatic vascular territory was compared to the corresponding territory in the contralateral hemisphere. Clinical assessment on admission and discharge was performed using the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS). Results: Three groups were defined according to the degree of CBF asymmetry between the symptomatic and the contralateral asymptomatic vascular region. The CBF asymmetry was mild in group A (less than or equal to 20%), moderate in group B (>20% and <60%) and severe in group C (greater than or equal to 60%). Patients in group A (n = 18) had a good outcome with a mean NIHSS score of 2 +/- 2 at discharge. In group B, the patients (n = 22) had inter mediate but variable outcomes: 2 patients died and the mean NIHSS score for the survivors was variable (mean NIHSS score: 9 +/- 6). The patients in group C (n = 10) had a very poor outcome: 4 patients died and the survivors had a mean NIHSS score of 15 +/- 1. Conclusions: Quantitative XeCT CBF measurements may be useful for selecting subgroups of stroke patients with different clinical outcomes. The possibility of predicting patient prognosis as early as in the first hours after the ischemic event may help to identify the appropriate target population that will benefit from aggressive stroke therapy. Copyright (C) 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available