4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Clarifying Differences Among Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Scale Variants Is the Artery Half Open or Half Closed?

期刊

STROKE
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 1166-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000399

关键词

interobserver variability; reperfusion; stroke; thrombolytic therapy; TICI

资金

  1. National Institute of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
  2. MicroVention
  3. Micrus
  4. Benvenue
  5. eV3
  6. Sequent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Although thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 has been regarded as a successful angiographic outcome, the definition or subclassification of TICI 2 has differed between the original (o-TICI) and modified TICI (m-TICI). We sought to compare interobserver variability for both scores and analyze the subgroups of the TICI 2. Methods-Five readers interpreted angiographies independently using a 6-point scale as follows: grade 0, no antegrade flow; grade 1, flow past the initial occlusion without tissue reperfusion; grade 2, partial reperfusion in <50% of the affected territory; grade 3, partial reperfusion in 50% to 66%; grade 4, partial reperfusion in >= 67%; grade 5, complete perfusion. Readings using this scale were then converted into o-TICI and m-TICI score. Statistical analysis was performed according to TICI 2 subgroups. Results-Interobserver agreement was good for the o-TICI and m-TICI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). Our grade 3 (partial perfusion with 50% to 66%) occupied 19% of total readings, which would have been classified as grade 2a in o-TICI, but as 2b in m-TICI. The m-TICI was more likely to predict good clinical outcome than o-TICI (odds ratio, 2.01 versus 1.63, in reads with TICI 2b/3 versus 0/2a). Conclusions-Both TICI scales showed good agreement among readers. However, the variability in partial perfusion thresholds leads to different grading in approximate to 20% of cases and may result in significantly different rates of accurate outcome prediction. (Stroke. 2013;44:1166-1168.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据