What is meant by "TICI"?

BACKGROUND: In 2003, Higashida et al proposed the Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction scale to evaluate angiographic intracranial flow. Our aim is to review how subsequently published studies define TICI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the ISI Web of Knowledge and SciVerse Scopus databases to search for "TICI" and "thrombolysis in cerebral infarction" and for articles that cited the original TICI paper from January 2004 through May 2012. Articles were categorized according to their definition of the TICI categories, typically grades 0-4, with grade 2 (partial reperfusion) subdivided into 2a and 2b, and rate of contrast entry to the perfused area. In addition, we catalogued the type of redefinitions of TICI subcategory 2 and additions of new categories. RESULTS: Of 236 articles screened, 74 were included. Eight (11%) explicitly followed the TICI scale as originally defined. Thirty-seven (50%) cited Higashida but did not define their scale. Fifteen (21%) used and explained modified scales. Thirteen (18%) used the term TICI, but did not define the scale and did not cite Higashida. Eighteen (24%) specified a 2a subcategory. Nine defined grade 2a as <67% filling, 6 defined it as <50%, and 3 did not offer a percentage. Two studies added a 2c subcategory. Fifty-two (70%) used a cutoff level to define "successful reperfusion." Of these, 65% used TICI ≥2, 33% used TICI ≥2b, and 2% used TICI = 3. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the definition and/or application of the TICI scale in the literature. This variability could considerably impact our understanding of results of revascularization studies.

Interobserver variability in retreatment decisions of recurrent and residual aneurysms.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The degree of variation in retreatment decisions for residual or recurrent aneurysms among endovascular therapists remains poorly defined. We performed a multireader study to determine what reader and patient variables contribute to this variation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven endovascular therapists (4 neuroradiologists, 3 neurosurgeons) independently reviewed 66 cases of patients treated with endovascular coil embolization for ruptured or unruptured aneurysm. Cases were rated on a 5-point scale recommending for whether to retreat and a recommended retreatment type. Reader agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient and by identifying cases with a "clinically meaningful difference" (a difference in score that would result in a difference in treatment). Variables that affect reader agreement and retreatment decisions were examined by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Pearson χ(2) test, and linear regression. RESULTS: Overall interobserver variability for decision to retreat was moderate (ICC = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.61). Clinically meaningful differences between at least 2 readers were present in 61% of cases and were significantly more common among neuroradiologists than neurosurgeons (P = .0007). Neurosurgeons were more likely to recommend "definitely retreat" than neuroradiologists (P < .0001). Previously ruptured aneurysms, larger remnant size, and younger patients were associated with more retreat recommendations. Interobserver variability regarding retreatment type was fair overall 0.25 (95% CI, 0.14-0.41) but poor for experienced readers 0.14 (95% CI, 0-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large amount of interobserver variability regarding the decision to retreat an aneurysm and the type of retreatment. This variability must be reduced to increase consistency in these subjective outcome measurements.