4.6 Article

Crossed cerebellar diaschisis in acute human stroke: a PET study of serial changes and response to supratentorial reperfusion

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 25, 期 12, 页码 1685-1691

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600162

关键词

CBF; crossed cerebellar diaschisis; PET; reperfusion; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crossed cerebellar diaschisis (CCD) is well described in the chronic phase of stroke, but few data describe acute CCD and its serial changes after reperfusion. Using positron emission tomography (PET), we studied acute CCD with respect to supratentorial perfusion and outcome measures. In 19 acute stroke patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (<3 h), O-15-water PET assessed CCD and supratentorial hypoperfusion volume before thrombolysis, 3, 24 h and 14 days later. Infarct volume at day 14 and NIHSS score at 3 months were assessed. Supratentorial hypoperfusion decreased from 25 cm(3) (median) before thrombolysis to 0.1 cm(3) at day 14. Baseline CCD was 13.4% and decreased continuously to 6.1% after 14 days. The NIHSS score decreased from 11 to 4 pts after 3 months. Infarct volume was 1.1 cm(3). Crossed cerebellar diaschisis correlated to the hypoperfusion volume within the first 24 h after stroke, but not later. Hypoperfusion correlated to outcome measures at the early stage only. In contrast, CCD correlated to outcome values at all four measurements. Reperfusion with recovery of CCD was seen in patients with small infarcts and good clinical outcome and vice versa. Our data suggest that (i) CCD occurs as early as 3 h after stroke and might be reversible; (ii) acute CCD is closely related to the volume of supratentorial hypoperfusion. At later time points, however, CCD is disconnected from supratentorial perfusion but strongly associated to outcome measures; (iii) CCD is not susceptible to non-nutritional reperfusion and adds valuable information to interpret supratentorial reperfusion patterns.

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