4.7 Article

Impact of perfusion lesion in corticospinal tract on response to reperfusion

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 12, Pages 5280-5289

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4868-y

Keywords

Stroke; Thrombolytic therapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis; Corticospinal tract

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81622017, 81471170]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1301500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to examine the impact of corticospinal tract (CST) involvement in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) patients on functional outcome and the interaction with reperfusion. We retrospectively examined data in consecutive anterior circulation AIS patients undergoing thrombolysis. MR perfusion (time to maximum of tissue residue function, Tmax) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images were transformed into standard space and the volumes of CST involvement by Tmax > 6 s (CST-Tmax) and ADC < 620 x 10(-6) mm(2)/s (CST-ADC) lesions were calculated. Good outcome was defined as modified Rankin scale ae 2 at 3 months. Reperfusion was defined as a reduction in Tmax > 6 s lesion volume of ae70% between baseline and 24 h. 82 patients were included. Binary logistic regression revealed that both CST-Tmax and CST-ADC volume at baseline were significantly associated with poor outcome (p < 0.05). The 24-h CST-ADC volume was correlated with baseline CST-ADC volume in patients with reperfusion (r = 0.79, p < 0.001) and baseline CST-Tmax volume in patients without reperfusion (r = 0.67, p < 0.001). In patients with CST-Tmax volume > 0 mL and CST-ADC volume < 3 mL, the rate of good outcome was higher in patients with reperfusion than those without (70.4% vs 38.1%, p = 0.04). The use of CST-Tmax in combination with CST-ADC provides prognostic information in patients considered for reperfusion therapies.

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