Suppr超能文献

腔隙性脑梗死15毫米的大小标准仍然有效吗?一项使用扩散加权磁共振成像对严格意义上的大脑中动脉皮质下区域梗死的研究。

Is 15 mm size criterion for lacunar infarction still valid? A study on strictly subcortical middle cerebral artery territory infarction using diffusion-weighted MRI.

作者信息

Cho A-Hyun, Kang Dong-Wha, Kwon Sun U, Kim Jong S

机构信息

Department of Neurology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(1):14-9. doi: 10.1159/000095753. Epub 2006 Sep 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The 'lacunar hypothesis' has been challenged, since small (diameter <15 mm) subcortical infarcts can be produced by middle cerebral artery disease (MCAD) or cardioembolism (CE), while a larger infarct can occur without evidence of MCAD or CE. We sought to assess whether the lacunar hypothesis based on size is still valid.

METHODS

We studied 118 patients who were admitted within 72 h after stroke onset and had acute deep subcortical MCA territory infarcts detected by diffusion-weighted MRI, and who had undergone angiography (mostly MR angiography). Stroke mechanisms were arbitrarily categorized regardless of lesion size: (1) MCAD when there was a corresponding MCA lesion; (2) internal carotid artery disease (ICAD) when there was a significant (>50%) ipsilateral ICAD; (3) CE when there was emboligenic heart disease without MCAD or ICAD, and (4) small vessel disease (SVD) when there was neither CE nor MCAD. SVD was further divided into definite SVD (dSVD, longest diameter <15 mm) or probable SVD (pSVD, longest diameter > or =15 mm).

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (62%) had SVD, of which 38 (32%) had pSVD and 35 (30%) dSVD. Thirty-three patients (28%) had MCAD, five (4%) CE, and seven (6%) ICAD. The infarct diameter in MCAD was not larger than in SVD (p = 0.35), and there was no difference in clinical features or risk factors between MCAD and SVD, or between pSVD and dSVD. CE was distinguished from SVD by its larger size and cortical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no clinical and lesion-size differences between MCAD and SVD, suggesting that there seems to be no rationale for the 15 mm size criterion for lacunar or small-vessel infarction.

摘要

背景与目的

“腔隙性梗死假说”受到了挑战,因为大脑中动脉疾病(MCAD)或心源性栓塞(CE)可导致小的(直径<15mm)皮质下梗死,而在没有MCAD或CE证据的情况下也可发生较大的梗死。我们试图评估基于大小的腔隙性梗死假说是否仍然有效。

方法

我们研究了118例在卒中发作后72小时内入院、通过扩散加权磁共振成像检测到急性深部皮质下大脑中动脉区域梗死且接受了血管造影(大多为磁共振血管造影)的患者。无论病变大小,卒中机制被任意分类为:(1)存在相应大脑中动脉病变时为MCAD;(2)同侧颈内动脉病变显著(>50%)时为颈内动脉疾病(ICAD);(3)存在无MCAD或ICAD的致栓性心脏病时为CE;(4)既无CE也无MCAD时为小血管疾病(SVD)。SVD进一步分为明确的SVD(dSVD,最长直径<15mm)或可能的SVD(pSVD,最长直径≥15mm)。

结果

73例患者(62%)患有SVD,其中38例(32%)患有pSVD,35例(30%)患有dSVD。33例患者(28%)患有MCAD,5例(4%)患有CE,7例(6%)患有ICAD。MCAD中的梗死直径不大于SVD中的梗死直径(p = 0.35),MCAD与SVD之间、pSVD与dSVD之间在临床特征或危险因素方面没有差异。CE与SVD的区别在于其梗死面积较大和有皮质症状。

结论

MCAD与SVD之间在临床和病变大小方面没有差异,这表明对于腔隙性或小血管梗死采用15mm的大小标准似乎没有依据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验