4.6 Article

The negative effect of aging on cerebral venous outflow in acute ischemic stroke

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 1648-1655

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X231179558

关键词

Aging; cerebrovascular circulation; collateral circulation; ischemic stroke; neuroimaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effect of aging on cortical venous outflow (VO) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). The results showed that higher age was associated with worse VO and poorer cerebral microperfusion, partially explained by the extent of hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR).
Cortical venous outflow (VO) represents an imaging biomarker of increasing interest in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study to investigate the effect of aging on VO. A total of 784 patients met the inclusion criteria. Cortical Vein Opacification Score (COVES) was used to assess VO profiles on admission CT angiography. Cerebral microperfusion was determined using the hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) derived from perfusion imaging. Arterial collaterals were assessed using the Tan scale. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify independent determinants of VO, HIR and arterial collaterals. In multivariable regression, higher age correlated with worse VO (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]; 0.83 [0.73-0.95]; P = 0.006) and poorer HIR (beta coefficient [95% CI], 0.014 [0.005-0.024]; P = 0.002). The negative effect of higher age on VO was mediated by the extent of HIR (17.3%). We conclude that higher age was associated with worse VO in AIS-LVO, partially explained by the extent of HIR reflecting cerebral microperfusion. Our study underlines the need to assess collateral blood flow beyond the arterial system and provides valuable insights into deteriorated cerebral blood supply in elderly AIS-LVO patients.

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