Comparison of different methods of thrombus permeability measurement and impact on recanalization in the INTERRSeCT multinational multicenter prospective cohort study

. 2020 Mar ; 62 (3) : 301-306. [epub] 20191112

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid31713667

Grantová podpora
P300PB_161071 Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Odkazy

PubMed 31713667
DOI 10.1007/s00234-019-02320-y
PII: 10.1007/s00234-019-02320-y
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

PURPOSE: To compare the association of different measures of intracranial thrombus permeability on non-contrast computerized tomography (NCCT) and computed tomography angiography (CTA) with recanalization with or without intravenous alteplase. METHODS: Patients with anterior circulation occlusion from the INTERRSeCT study were included. Thrombus permeability was measured on non-contrast CT and CTA using the following methods: [1] automated method, mean attenuation increase on co-registered thin (< 2.5 mm) CTA/NCCT; [2] semi-automated method, maximum attenuation increase on non-registered CTA/NCCT (ΔHUmax); [3] manual method, maximum attenuation on CTA (HUmax); and [4] visual method, residual flow grade. Primary outcome was recanalization with intravenous alteplase on the revised AOL scale (2b/3). Regression models were compared using C-statistic, Akaike (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). RESULTS: Four hundred eighty patients were included in this analysis. Statistical models using methods 2, 3, and 4 were similar in their ability to discriminate recanalizers from non-recanalizers (C-statistic 0.667, 0.683, and 0.634, respectively); method 3 had the least information loss (AIC = 483.8; BIC = 492.2). A HUmax ≥ 89 measured with method 3 provided optimal sensitivity and specificity in discriminating recanalizers from non-recanalizers [recanalization 55.4% (95%CI 46.2-64.6) when HUmax > 89 vs. 16.8% (95%CI 13.0-20.6) when HUmax ≤ 89]. In sensitivity analyses restricted to patients with co-registered CTA/NCCT (n = 88), methods 1-4 predicted recanalization similarly (C-statistic 0.641, 0.688, 0.640, 0.648, respectively) with Method 2 having the least information loss (AIC 104.8, BIC 109.8). CONCLUSION: Simple methods that measure thrombus permeability are as reliable as complex image processing methods in discriminating recanalizers from non-recanalizers.

Komentář v

PubMed

Zobrazit více v PubMed

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2265-72 PubMed

Stroke. 2016 Aug;47(8):1972-3 PubMed

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Oct;39(10):1854-1859 PubMed

Stroke. 2015 Apr;46(4):968-75 PubMed

Stroke. 2016 Mar;47(3):732-41 PubMed

Stroke. 2016 Aug;47(8):2058-65 PubMed

JAMA. 2018 Sep 11;320(10):1017-1026 PubMed

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...