Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1/1710
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorEvans, James W-
dc.contributor.otherGensicke, H.-
dc.contributor.otherAl-Ajlan, F.S.-
dc.contributor.otherDowlatshahi, D.-
dc.contributor.otherNajm, M.-
dc.contributor.otherCalleja, A.L.-
dc.contributor.otherPuig, J.-
dc.contributor.otherSohn, S.L.-
dc.contributor.otherAhn, S.H.-
dc.contributor.otherPoppe, A.Y.-
dc.contributor.otherMikulik, R.-
dc.contributor.otherAsdaghi, N.-
dc.contributor.otherField, T.S.-
dc.contributor.otherJin, A.-
dc.contributor.otherAsil, T.-
dc.contributor.otherBoulanger, J.M.-
dc.contributor.otherHill, M.D.-
dc.contributor.otherGoyal, M.-
dc.contributor.otherDemchuk, A.M.-
dc.contributor.otherMenon, B.K.-
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-02T00:11:54Z-
dc.date.available2019-12-02T00:11:54Z-
dc.date.issued2019-11-
dc.identifier.citation62(3):301-306en
dc.identifier.issn0028-3940en
dc.identifier.urihttps://elibrary.cclhd.health.nsw.gov.au/cclhdjspui/handle/1/1710-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: 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 (DeltaHUmax); [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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNeuroscienceen
dc.subjectNeurologyen
dc.subjectStrokeen
dc.titleComparison of different methods of thrombus permeability measurement and impact on recanalization in the INTERRSeCT multinational multicenter prospective cohort studyen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00234-019-02320-yen
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31713667en
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Coast Local Health Districten
dc.description.affiliatesGosford Hospitalen
dc.identifier.journaltitleNeuroradiologyen
dc.type.studyortrialProspective Cohort Studyen
dc.originaltypeTexten
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:Neurology
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

62
checked on Nov 29, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.