4.6 Article

Multi-site laser Doppler flowmetry for assessing collateral flow in experimental ischemic stroke: Validation of outcome prediction with acute MRI

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 2159-2170

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16661567

关键词

Cerebral collateral flow; laser Doppler flowmetry; magnetic resonance imaging; middle cerebral artery occlusion; Wistar rat

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) [FAR12-01-138-2002100]
  2. Universite Lyon 1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High variability in infarct size is common in experimental stroke models and affects statistical power and validity of neuroprotection trials. The aim of this study was to explore cerebral collateral flow as a stratification factor for the prediction of ischemic outcome. Transient intraluminal occlusion of the middle cerebral artery was induced for 90min in 18 Wistar rats. Cerebral collateral flow was assessed intra-procedurally using multi-site laser Doppler flowmetry monitoring in both the lateral middle cerebral artery territory and the borderzone territory between middle cerebral artery and anterior cerebral artery. Multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess acute ischemic lesion (diffusion-weighted imaging, DWI), acute perfusion deficit (time-to-peak, TTP), and final ischemic lesion at 24h. Infarct volumes and typology at 24h (large hemispheric versus basal ganglia infarcts) were predicted by both intra-ischemic collateral perfusion and acute DWI lesion volume. Collateral flow assessed by multi-site laser Doppler flowmetry correlated with the corresponding acute perfusion deficit using TTP maps. Multi-site laser Doppler flowmetry monitoring was able to predict ischemic outcome and perfusion deficit in good agreement with acute MRI. Our results support the additional value of cerebral collateral flow monitoring for outcome prediction in experimental ischemic stroke, especially when acute MRI facilities are not available.

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

4.6
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