Kleindorfer Dawn, Khoury Jane, Alwell Kathleen, Moomaw Charles J, Woo Daniel, Flaherty Matthew L, Adeoye Opeolu, Ferioli Simona, Khatri Pooja, Kissela Brett M
Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 2300, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0525, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA.
BMC Neurol. 2015 Sep 25;15:175. doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0421-2.
There are several situations in which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might impact whether an cerebrovascular event is considered a new stroke. These include clinically non-focal events with positive imaging for acute cerebral infarction, and worsening of older symptoms without evidence of new infarction on MRI. We sought to investigate the impact of MRI on stroke detection and stroke incidence, by describing agreement between a strictly clinical definition of stroke and a definition based on physician opinion, including MRI imaging findings.
All hospitalized strokes that occurred in five Ohio and Northern Kentucky counties (population 1.3 million) in the calendar year of 2005 were identified using ICD-9 discharge codes 430-436. The two definitions used were: "clinical case definition" which included sudden onset focal neurologic symptoms referable to a vascular territory for >24 h, compared to the "best clinical judgment of the physician definition", which considers all relevant information, including neuroimaging findings. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the incidence rates were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution. Rates were standardized to the 2000 U.S. population, adjusting for age, race, and sex, and included all age groups.
There were 2403 ischemic stroke events in 2269 patients; 1556 (64%) had MRI performed. Of the events, 2049 (83%) were cases by both definitions, 185 (7.7%) met the clinical case definition but were non-cases in the physician's opinion and 169 (7.0%) were non-cases by clinical definition but were cases in the physician's opinion. There was no significant difference in the incidence rates of first-ever or total ischemic strokes generated by the two different definitions, or when only those with MRI imaging were included.
We found that MRI findings do not appear to substantially change stroke incidence estimates, as the strictly clinical definition of stroke did not significantly differ from a definition that included imaging findings. Including MRI in the case definition "rules out" almost the same number of strokes as it "rules in".
在几种情况下,磁共振成像(MRI)可能会影响脑血管事件是否被视为新的中风。这些情况包括临床无局灶性症状但急性脑梗死成像呈阳性,以及旧症状加重但MRI未显示新梗死证据。我们试图通过描述严格的临床中风定义与基于医生意见(包括MRI成像结果)的定义之间的一致性,来研究MRI对中风检测和中风发病率的影响。
使用ICD-9出院编码430-436识别2005年日历年度在俄亥俄州和肯塔基州北部五个县(人口130万)发生的所有住院中风病例。使用的两种定义为:“临床病例定义”,包括突发的、持续超过24小时的、可归因于血管区域的局灶性神经症状,与“医生的最佳临床判断定义”相比,后者考虑了所有相关信息,包括神经影像学结果。假设为泊松分布计算发病率的95%置信区间(CI)。发病率根据2000年美国人口进行标准化,调整年龄、种族和性别,并包括所有年龄组。
2269例患者中有2403例缺血性中风事件;其中1556例(64%)进行了MRI检查。在这些事件中,2049例(83%)在两种定义下均为病例,185例(7.7%)符合临床病例定义但医生认为不是病例,169例(7.0%)根据临床定义不是病例但医生认为是病例。两种不同定义所产生的首次或总缺血性中风发病率,以及仅纳入有MRI成像的病例时,均无显著差异。
我们发现MRI结果似乎并未实质性改变中风发病率估计,因为严格的临床中风定义与包括成像结果的定义并无显著差异。在病例定义中纳入MRI“排除”的中风病例数与“纳入”的几乎相同。