4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Cerebral vasomotor reactivity of patients with acute ischernic stroke:: Cortical versus subcortical infarcts:: An Israeli-Turkish collaborative study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 257, 期 1-2, 页码 121-125

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.01.024

关键词

ischemic stroke; cerebrovascular reactivity; Doppler ultrasonography; transcranial; acetazolamide; circle of Willis; middle cerebral artery; brain infarct

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cerebral hemodynamic features of patients with different types of acute ischemic stroke are still obscure. We compared cerebral vasomotor reactivity (VMR) in acute cortical (CI) and subcortical (SI) brain infarcts. Methods: Acute stroke patients (within 72 h of stroke onset) underwent transcranial Doppler and the Diamox test (1 g acelazolamide IV). The percent difference between blood flow velocities in the middle cerebral arteries before and after acetazolamide was defined as VMR%. Cl and SI infarcts were confirmed by computerized tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical status and disability were assessed by means of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) respectively. VMR% values and stroke severity and disability parameters were compared between Cl and SI groups using ANOVA and Pearson's correlation (r) coefficients. Results: VMR% values of the ipsilateral side to the brain infarct in the CI group were significantly lower as compared with SI group (12.2 +/- 15.9% and 25.6 +/- 24.4% respectively, P=0.03). VMR% values in both groups were not correlated with stroke severity and disability (P < 0. 2). Conclusions: Our results suggest greater vulnerability of resistance arterioles in the setting of cortical gray matter infarcts. Although gray matter VMR is physiologically higher than white matter VMR, patients with acute CI have impaired cerebral vascular reserve. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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