Suppr超能文献

急性缺血性卒中的“最佳”目标不匹配标准是什么?

What Is the "Optimal" Target Mismatch Criteria for Acute Ischemic Stroke?

作者信息

Chen Chushuang, Parsons Mark W, Levi Christopher R, Spratt Neil J, Lin Longting, Kleinig Timothy, Butcher Kenneth, Cheng Xin, Dong Qiang, O'Brien Billy, Avivi Richard I, Krause Martin, Sylaja P N, Choi Philip, Bhuta Sandeep, Yin Congguo, Yang Jianhong, Wang Peng, Qiu Weiwen, Bivard Andrew

机构信息

Melbourne Brain Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Department of Neurology, Liverpool Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Front Neurol. 2021 Jan 13;11:590766. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.590766. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

We aimed to compare Perfusion Imaging Mismatch (PIM) and Clinical Core Mismatch (CCM) criteria in ischemic stroke patients to identify the effect of these criteria on selected patient population characteristics and clinical outcomes. Patients from the INternational Stroke Perfusion Imaging REgistry (INSPIRE) who received reperfusion therapy, had pre-treatment multimodal CT, 24-h imaging, and 3 month outcomes were analyzed. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), intravenous thrombolysis alone with large vessel occlusion (IVT-LVO), and intravenous thrombolysis alone without LVO (IVT-nonLVO). Patients were classified using 6 separate mismatch criteria: PIM-using 3 different measures to define the perfusion deficit (Delay Time, Tmax, or Mean Transit Time); or CCM-mismatch between age-adjusted National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and CT Perfusion core, defined as relative cerebral blood flow <30% within the perfusion deficit defined in three ways (as above). We assessed the eligibility rate for each mismatch criterion and its ability to identify patients likely to respond to treatment. There were 994 patients eligible for this study. PIM with delay time (PIM-DT) had the highest inclusion rate for both EVT (82.7%) and IVT-LVO (79.5%) cohorts. In PIM positive patients who received EVT, recanalization was strongly associated with achieving an excellent outcome at 90-days (e.g., PIM-DT: mRS 0-1, adjusted OR 4.27, = 0.005), whereas there was no such association between reperfusion and an excellent outcome with any of the CCM criteria (all > 0.05). Notably, in IVT-LVO cohort, 58.2% of the PIM-DT positive patients achieved an excellent outcome compared with 31.0% in non-mismatch patients following successful recanalization ( = 0.006). PIM-DT was the optimal mismatch criterion in large vessel occlusion patients, combining a high eligibility rate with better clinical response to reperfusion. No mismatch criterion was useful to identify patients who are most likely response to reperfusion in non-large vessel occlusion patients.

摘要

我们旨在比较缺血性中风患者的灌注成像不匹配(PIM)和临床核心不匹配(CCM)标准,以确定这些标准对选定患者群体特征和临床结局的影响。对来自国际中风灌注成像注册研究(INSPIRE)且接受了再灌注治疗、有治疗前多模态CT、24小时成像及3个月结局数据的患者进行了分析。患者被分为3组:血管内血栓切除术(EVT)组、单纯静脉溶栓伴大血管闭塞(IVT-LVO)组和单纯静脉溶栓不伴大血管闭塞(IVT-nonLVO)组。使用6种不同的不匹配标准对患者进行分类:PIM——使用3种不同方法定义灌注缺损(延迟时间、Tmax或平均通过时间);或CCM——年龄校正后的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表与CT灌注核心之间的不匹配,定义为在以三种方式(如上所述)定义的灌注缺损区内相对脑血流量<30%。我们评估了每种不匹配标准的入选率及其识别可能对治疗有反应的患者的能力。共有994例患者符合本研究条件。延迟时间的PIM(PIM-DT)在EVT组(82.7%)和IVT-LVO组(79.5%)中的入选率最高。在接受EVT的PIM阳性患者中,再通与90天时达到良好结局密切相关(例如,PIM-DT:改良Rankin量表评分0-1,校正后比值比4.27,P = 0.005),而对于任何CCM标准,再灌注与良好结局之间均无此类关联(所有P>0.05)。值得注意的是,在IVT-LVO组中,成功再通后,PIM-DT阳性患者中有58.2%达到了良好结局,而非不匹配患者中这一比例为31.0%(P = 0.006)。PIM-DT是大血管闭塞患者的最佳不匹配标准,它具有高入选率且对再灌注有更好的临床反应。没有不匹配标准对识别非大血管闭塞患者中最可能对再灌注有反应的患者有用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cf78/7874100/240855f79beb/fneur-11-590766-g0001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验