4.7 Article

Stroke magnetic resonance imaging is accurate in hyperacute intracerebral hemorrhage -: A multicenter study on the validity of stroke imaging

期刊

STROKE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 502-506

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000114203.75678.88

关键词

hemorrhage; magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose - Although modern multisequence stroke MRI protocols are an emerging imaging routine for the diagnostic assessment of acute ischemic stroke, their sensitivity for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), the most important differential diagnosis, is still a matter of debate. We hypothesized that stroke MRI is accurate in the detection of ICH. To evaluate our hypotheses, we conducted a prospective multicenter trial. Methods - Stroke MRI protocols of 6 university hospitals were standardized. Images from 62 ICH patients and 62 nonhemorrhagic stroke patients, all imaged within the first 6 hours after symptom onset (mean, 3 hours 18 minutes), were analyzed. For diagnosis of hemorrhage, CT served as the gold standard. Three readers experienced in stroke imaging and 3 final-year medical students, unaware of clinical details, separately evaluated sets of diffusion-, T2-, and T2*-weighted images. The extent and phenomenology of the hemorrhage on MRI were assessed separately. Results - Mean patient age was 65.5 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 10. The experienced readers identified ICH with 100% sensitivity (confidence interval, 97.1 to 100) and 100% overall accuracy. Mean ICH size was 17.3 mL (range, 1 to 101.5 mL). The students reached a mean sensitivity of 95.16% (confidence interval, 90.32 to 98.39). Conclusions - Hyperacute ICH causes a characteristic imaging pattern on stroke MRI and is detectable with excellent accuracy. Even raters with limited film-reading experience reached good accuracy. Stroke MRI alone can rule out ICH and demonstrate the underlying pathology in hyperacute 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

4.7
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