4.7 Article

Reliability of Measuring Lesion Volumes in Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke

Journal

STROKE
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 814-816

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.570358

Keywords

stroke; transient ischemic attack; volume measurement

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [MOP-118096]
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Alberta
  3. NWT
  4. Nunavut
  5. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  6. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  7. AstraZeneca Canada Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-Lesion volume measurements in disabling ischemic stroke have excellent reliability, but it is not clear whether this is also true for small lesions. We assessed the reliability of measuring baseline and follow-up lesion volumes in transient ischemic attack and minor stroke. Methods-Patients who presented with a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke (NIHSS <= 3) who had brain MRI within 24 hours from symptom onset and at 30-day follow-up and had an acute lesion on baseline MRI were included. Using semiautomated software, 4 stroke fellows independently assessed ischemic lesions twice on acute diffusion-weighted imaging and follow-up fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Results-Eighty patients were included, with a median baseline NIHSS of 1. Mean baseline diffusion-weighted imaging lesion volume was 3.4 +/- 7.4 mL (87.5% had <5 mL). There was excellent inter-rater/intrarater reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94/0.96 for acute diffusion-weighted imaging, 0.74/0.92 for follow-up fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and 0.81/0.93 for growth. Conclusion-We found excellent concordance between and within raters for acute diffusion-weighted imaging and 30-day follow-up fluid-attenuated inversion recovery lesion volume measurements in patients with transient ischemic attack and minor stroke. (Stroke. 2010; 41: 814-816.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available