4.2 Article

Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Imaging Provides a Significant Tool for the Identification of Cardioembolic Stroke

期刊

CURRENT NEUROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 271-276

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1567202613666160901143040

关键词

Cardioembolism; stroke; MRI; perfusion; LAA

资金

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CORPG690453, CORPG6D0131, CORPG6D 0132]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 104-2314-B-182A-033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite advances in imaging techniques and detailed examinations to determine the etiology of a stroke, the cause still remains undetermined in about one fourth of all ischemic strokes. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can differentiate cardioembolic stroke from large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). We recruited 17 cardioembolic stroke and 22 LAA stroke patients, who were classified according to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment and underwent perfusion MRI within 24 hours after the onset of stroke. The patients with cardioembolic stroke had more severe initial stroke severity and larger volumes of initial and final infarct compared to those with LAA stroke. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the ratio of time to maximum of the residual curve (T-max) volume for a 2-, 3-, 4-or 5-s lag over T-max volume for a 8s lag all had excellent area under the curve values (> 0.9) to predict cardioembolic stroke. After adjusting for initial National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores, a threshold of 3.73 for (T-max > 4s volume)/(T-max > 8s volume) had the highest odds ratio to predict cardioembolic stroke (p= 0.012; odds ratio: 58.5; 95% confident interval: 2.5-1391.1), with 87.5% sensitivity and 94.4% specificity. In conclusion, perfusion MRI could be a reliable tool to identify cardioembolic stroke with its lower collateral. This is important as it could be used to reveal the exact mechanism and provide supportive evidence to classify a stroke.

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

4.2
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