...
首页> 外文期刊>Stroke: A Journal of Cerebral Circulation >Evaluation of the clinical-diffusion and perfusion-diffusion mismatch models in DEFUSE.
【24h】

Evaluation of the clinical-diffusion and perfusion-diffusion mismatch models in DEFUSE.

机译:评价DEFUSE中的临床扩散和灌注扩散失配模型。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The perfusion-diffusion mismatch (PDM) model has been proposed as a tool to select acute stroke patients who are most likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy. The clinical-diffusion mismatch (CDM) model is an alternative method that is technically less challenging because it does not require perfusion-weighted imaging. This study is an evaluation of these 2 models in the DEFUSE dataset. METHODS: DEFUSE is an open-label multicenter study in which acute stroke patients were treated with intravenous tPA between 3 and 6 hours after symptoms onset and an MRI was obtained before and 3 to 6 hours after treatment. Presence of PDM and CDM was determined for each patient. RESULTS: Based on conventional predefined mismatch criteria, PDM was present in 54% of the DEFUSE population and CDM in 62%. There was no agreement beyond chance between the 2 mismatch models (kappa 0.07). The presence of PDM was associated with an increased chance of favorable clinical response after reperfusion (OR,5.4; P=0.039). Reperfusion was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of favorable clinical response in patients with CDM (OR, 2.2; P=0.34). Using optimized mismatch criteria, determined retrospectively based on DEFUSE data, the OR for favorable clinical response was 70 (P=0.001) for PDM and 5.1 (P=0.066) for CDM. CONCLUSIONS: The PDM model appears to be more accurate than the CDM model for selecting patients who are likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy in the 3- to 6-hour time window.
机译:背景与目的:已经提出了灌注-扩散不匹配(PDM)模型作为选择最有可能从再灌注治疗中受益的急性中风患者的工具。临床扩散不匹配(CDM)模型是一种替代方法,由于不需要灌注加权成像,因此在技术上没有什么挑战性。这项研究是对DEFUSE数据集中这两个模型的评估。方法:DEFUSE是一项开放标签的多中心研究,其中急性中风患者在症状发作后3至6小时之间接受静脉tPA治疗,并在治疗之前和之后3至6小时获得MRI。确定每个患者的PDM和CDM的存在。结果:基于传统的预定义失配标准,DEFUSE人口中有54%存在PDM,CDM则有62%。两个失配模型(kappa 0.07)之间没有达成共识。 PDM的存在与再灌注后良好的临床反应机会增加有关(OR,5.4; P = 0.039)。再灌注与CDM患者良好的临床反应率没有显着相关(OR,2.2; P = 0.34)。使用基于DEFUSE数据回顾性确定的最佳失配标准,PDM的良好临床反应OR为70(P = 0.001),CDM为5.1(P = 0.066)。结论:PDM模型似乎比CDM模型更准确,用于选择可能在3至6小时的时间窗口内受益于再灌注治疗的患者。

著录项

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