...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of neurology >Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT): A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study of Imaging Selection
【24h】

Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT): A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study of Imaging Selection

机译:优化急性缺血中风血管内治疗的患者选择(选择):一种预期,多中心队列成像选择

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Objective The primary imaging modalities used to select patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) are noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT perfusion (CTP). However, their relative utility is uncertain. We prospectively assessed CT and CTP concordance/discordance and correlated the imaging profiles on both with EVT treatment decisions and clinical outcomes. Methods A phase 2, multicenter, prospective cohort study of large‐vessel occlusions presented up to 24 hours from last known well was conducted. Patients received a unified prespecified imaging evaluation (CT, CT angiography, and CTP with Rapid Processing of Perfusion and Diffusion software mismatch determination). The treatment decision, EVT versus medical management, was nonrandomized and at the treating physicians’ discretion. An independent, blinded, neuroimaging core laboratory adjudicated favorable profiles based on predefined criteria (CT:Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score?≥?6, CTP:regional cerebral blood flow (30%)??70ml with mismatch ratio?≥?1.2 and mismatch volume?≥?10ml). Results Of 4,722 patients screened from January 2016 to February 2018, 361 patients were included. Two hundred eighty‐five (79%) received EVT, of whom 87.0% had favorable CTs, 91% favorable CTPs, 81% both favorable profiles, 16% discordant, and 3% both unfavorable. Favorable profiles on the 2 modalities correlated similarly with 90‐day functional independence rates (favorable CT = 56% vs favorable CTP = 57%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40–9.01, p =?0.41). Having a favorable profile on both modalities significantly increased the odds of receiving thrombectomy as compared to discordant profiles (aOR = 3.97, 95% CI = 1.97–8.01, p ?0.001). Fifty‐eight percent of the patients with favorable profiles on both modalities achieved functional independence as compared to 38% in discordant profiles and 0% when both were unfavorable ( p ?0.001 for trend). In favorable CT/unfavorable CTP profiles, EVT was associated with high symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (24%) and mortality (53%) rates. Interpretation Patients with favorable imaging profiles on both modalities had higher odds of receiving EVT and high functional independence rates. Patients with discordant profiles achieved reasonable functional independence rates, but those with an unfavorable CTP had higher adverse outcomes. Ann Neurol 2020;87:419–433
机译:目的用于选择血管内血栓切除术(EVT)患者的主要成像方式是非转型计算断层扫描(CT)和CT灌注(CTP)。然而,他们的相对效用是不确定的。我们预期评估了CT和CTP的协调/不等调,并与EVT治疗决策和临床结果相关联。方法采用阶段2,多中心,前瞻性队列的大容器闭塞从上一次已知井中呈现最多24小时。患者接受统一的预定成像评估(CT,CT血管造影和CTP,具有快速加工灌注和扩散软件不匹配确定)。治疗决定,EVT与医疗管理,非沉积,治疗医生自行决定。基于预定标准的独立,盲,神经影像核心实验室判决良好的型材(CT:Alberta Strows程序早期CT得分?≥?6,CTP:区域脑血流(& 30%)? ≥≤1.2和不匹配的体积?≥10ml)。结果4,722名患者从2016年1月到2018年2月,包括361名患者。 2亿八十五(79%)收到EVT,其中87.0%有良好的CTS,91%良好的CTP,81%,良好的概况,16%不安,3%均不利。 2个模式上的有利型材与90天功能独立率相似(有利的Ct = 56%Vs有利的CTP = 57%,调整后的差距= 1.91,95%置信区间[CI] = 0.40-9.01,P =?0.41)。与不和谐的曲线相比,两种方式的有利型材显着增加接受血栓切除术的几率(AOR = 3.97,95%CI = 1.97-8.01,P& 0.001)。五十八百八个患者在两种方式上的良好型患者实现了功能性独立,而在不安全的曲线中的38%相比,当两者都是不利的时(P <0.001的趋势)相比,0%。在有利的CT /不利的CTP型材中,EVT与高症状颅内出血(SICH)(24%)和死亡率(53%)率有关。对两种方式有利的成像型谱的解释患者接受EVT和高功能独立率的几率较高。具有不和谐的曲线的患者实现了合理的功能独立性率,但具有不利CTP的人具有更高的不利结果。 Ann Neurol 2020; 87:419-433

著录项

  • 来源
    《Annals of neurology 》 |2020年第3期| 共15页
  • 作者单位

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas Rio Grande ValleyHarlingen TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public HealthBirmingham AL;

    Department of Clinical and Translational ScienceUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Cone HealthGreensboro NC;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyOhioHealth–Riverside Methodist HospitalColumbus OH;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas City KS;

    Department of NeurologySaint Louis UniversitySt. Louis MO;

    Department of NeuroradiologyFlorida HospitalOrlando FL;

    Department of NeurologyEmory UniversityAtlanta GA;

    Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyTouro Infirmary and New Orleans East HospitalNew Orleans LA;

    Department of NeurologyStanford UniversityStanford CA;

    Department of NeurologyWellStar Health SystemAtlanta GA;

    Department of NeurologyUniversity of Texas at HoustonHouston TX;

    Department of NeurologyStanford UniversityStanford CA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 神经病学 ;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号