Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Journal of Stroke ; : 91-100, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | WPRIM | ID: wpr-740615

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A long clot, defined by a low (0-6) clot burden score (CBS) assessed by T2*-MR sequence, is associated with worse clinical outcome after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke than is a small clot (CBS, 7-10). The added benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) might be higher in patients with long clot. The aim of this pre-specified post hoc analysis of the THRombectomie des Artères CErebrales (THRACE) trial was to assess the association between T2*-CBS, successful recanalization and clinical outcome. METHODS: Of 414 patients randomized in the THRACE trial, 281 patients were included in this analysis. Associations between T2*-CBS and clinical outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months were tested. RESULTS: High T2*-CBS, i.e., small clot, was associated with a shift toward better outcome on the mRS; proportional odds ratio (POR) per point CBS was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.34) in the whole population, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.59) in IVT group, and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.23) in IVTMT group. After adjustment for baseline prognostic variables, the effect of the full scale T2*-CBS was not statistically significant in the whole population and for the IVTMT group but remains significant for the IVT group (POR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.58). CONCLUSIONS: A small clot, as assessed using T2*-CBS, is associated with improved outcome and may be used as a prognostic marker. Despite the worst outcome with long clot, the relative benefit of MT over IVT seemed to increase with low T2*-CBS and longer clot.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Oportunidad Relativa , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Trombectomía , Trombosis
3.
Journal of Stroke ; : 268-276, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | WPRIM | ID: wpr-714413

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the Aspiration vs. Stent Retriever for Successful Revascularization (ASTER) trial, which evaluated contact aspiration (CA) versus stent retriever (SR) use as first-line technique, the impact of the susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was studied to determine its influence on trial results. METHODS: We included patients having undergone CA or SR for M1 or M2 occlusions, who were screened by MRI with T2* gradient recalled echo. Occlusions were classified as SVS (+) or SVS (–) in each randomization arm. Modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) 2b, 2c, or 3 revascularization rates were recorded and clinical outcomes assessed by the overall distribution of modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days. RESULTS: Among the 202 patients included, 143 patients were SVS (+) (70.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.5% to 77.1%). Overall, there was no difference in angiographic and clinical outcomes according to SVS status. However, compared to SR, CA achieved a lower mTICI 2c/3 rate in SVS (+) patients (risk ratio [RR] for CA vs. SR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.71) but not in SVS (–) (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.77; P for interaction=0.018). A significant heterogeneity in favor of superiority of first-line SR strategy in SVS (+) patients was also found regarding the overall mRS distribution (common odds ratio for CA vs. SR, 0.40 vs. 1.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.74 in SVS (+) vs. 95% CI, 0.51 to 3.35 in SVS (–); P for interaction=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: As a first line strategy, SR achieved higher recanalization rates and a more favourable clinical outcome at 3 months compared to CA when MRI shows SVS within the thrombus.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Brazo , Infarto Cerebral , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Oportunidad Relativa , Características de la Población , Distribución Aleatoria , Stents , Trombectomía , Trombosis
4.
Journal of Stroke ; : 416-416, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | WPRIM | ID: wpr-717260

RESUMEN

On page 271, in Table 1, the value ‘1115 (65??51)’ of subgroup ‘Imaging to groin puncture’ and column heading ‘SVS (??’ was input incorrectly. The correct value is ‘115 (65??51).’

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA