首页> 外文OA文献 >Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute ischemic stroke: can diffusion/perfusion mismatch predict outcome?
【2h】

Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute ischemic stroke: can diffusion/perfusion mismatch predict outcome?

机译:急性缺血性卒中患者的弥散和灌注加权磁共振成像:扩散/灌注不匹配可预测结果吗?

摘要

Introduction: Stroke is the third leading cause of death, and is the leading cause of disabilities worldwide. Although stroke may result from localized cerebral ischemia, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage or venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke is the most frequently cause of the total cases. In ischemic stroke, occlusion of the MCA or its branches accounts for more than 3/4 of infarcts and two thirds of all first strokes. The main mechanisms causing ischemic strokes are embolism and arterial thromboembolism. No matter what the mechanism an ischemic stroke is, they eventually lead to a focal reduction of perfusion in the brain. In the hyperacute stage the recognition of the ischemia using both clinical assessment and routine neuroimaging technique implies some uncertainties, which in turn makes it difficult to predict the outcome, either to improve or to reverse spontaneously, to persist or worsen. The concept of diffusion/perfusion mismatch attracted great attention since it may represent the tissue at risk or at least an index of penumbra. Our interest was to investigate whether the hemodynamic parameters had correlation with clinical severity and if they were useful for prediction of outcome in the mismatch region. Since diffusion/perfusion mismatch was recognized as a simple and feasible means to identify the ischemic penumbra, we evaluated the hemodynamic parameters in acute stroke patients and compared these parameter to the stroke scale NIHSS and to the outcome score MRS to investigate our hypothesis.Materials and Methods: 35 acute stroke patients (male:female=20:15, age: 61.3±15.2 years) who met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Significant cerebrovascular risk factors were recorded in 27 patients. The NIHSS assessment was immediately performed at the patients’ admission by a neurologist. Functional outcome was measured on the day of hospital discharge following MRS. Routine MRI sequences and DWI and PWI (dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced [DSC] imaging) were employed in our patients study. The perfusion maps were processed with MEDx® and the parameters were obtained by identifying ROIs on both ischemic core and mismatch region, and the normal mirror region. Relative values of the hemodynamic perfusion parameters were used in the evaluation. Statistic treatment was used to test the significance of the result.Results: The NIHSS score ranged from 0 to 19 (10.2±4.4) and the outcome MRS scale ranged from 0 to 6 (mean: 3.23). Between the good outcome group (MRS 0 to 3) and the poor outcome group (MRS 4 to 6), time to scan, type of treatment, DW/PW volume ratio, and age and female/male ratio did not show significant differences. In ischemic core: rCBF showed a remarkable decrease in all patients on average by 59.3±33.7% (range: 23.2 - 97.4%). rCBV decreased in 29 patients by 41.7±23.7% (range 19.6 - 55.6%), while 6 patients showed an increase of rCBV by 60.4±57.1% (range 0.7 -139%). The mean rCBV change of the entire group was 26.3±52.5%. MTT, TTP and T0 prolonged for 4.7 (SD=15.1), 2.8 (SD=12.9) and 0.5 (SD=10.4) seconds, respectively.In mismatch region: rCBF decreased in 15 patients by 26.2±19.9% (range: 5.3-58.4%) and increased in 20 patients by 35±23.2% (range: 6.8–74.4%). The change of the rCBF of the whole patients group was 5.8±38.4%. rCBV decreased in 7 patients by 14.7±16.5% (range: 0.8-44.5%) and increased in 28 patients by 39.5±36% (range: 2.2-91.1%). The mean change of the rCBV of the whole group was 19.9±31.2%. The mean value of MTT, TTP and T0 prolonged for 2.7 (SD=8.5), 3.2 (SD=5.2) and 1.3 (SD=4.2) seconds respectively.In both core and mismatch region, rCBF showed statistically significant regression to MRS. The more the rCBF decreased the higher the MRS (poor outcome) was. Also, the MTT delay in the core region was significantly related to MRS. TTP delay, in both core and mismatch region, was related to both NIHSS and MRS significantly. No statistic significance was found comparing CBV and T0 in relation with NIHSS or MRS. Conclusion: The hemodynamic parameters derived from perfusion MR imaging may be helpful adjunct to predict the outcome and severity in acute stroke patients. In mismatch region, the rCBF and TTP are predictive for the stroke outcome.
机译:简介:中风是导致死亡的第三大原因,也是全世界致残的主要原因。尽管中风可能是由于局部脑缺血,脑出血,蛛网膜下腔出血或静脉窦血栓形成所致,但缺血性中风是所有病例中最常见的原因。在缺血性卒中中,MCA或其分支的阻塞占梗死面积的3/4以上,占所有首次卒中的三分之二。引起缺血性中风的主要机制是栓塞和动脉血栓栓塞。无论缺血性中风的机制是什么,它们最终都会导致大脑灌注的局灶性减少。在超急性期,使用临床评估和常规神经成像技术对缺血的识别意味着一些不确定性,这反过来使得很难预测结果的改善或自发逆转,持续或恶化。扩散/灌注不匹配的概念引起了极大的关注,因为它可能代表处于危险中的组织或至少是半影指数。我们的兴趣是调查血液动力学参数是否与临床严重程度相关,以及是否可用于预测失配区域的预后。由于扩散/灌注失配被认为是识别缺血性半影​​的一种简单可行的方法,因此我们评估了急性中风患者的血流动力学参数,并将其与中风量表NIHSS和结局评分MRS进行了比较,以研究我们的假设。方法:选择符合研究纳入和排除标准的35例急性中风患者(男:女= 20:15,年龄:61.3±15.2岁)。在27例患者中记录了重要的脑血管危险因素。神经科医生在患者入院后立即进行了NIHSS评估。在MRS出院当天测量功能结局。在我们的患者研究中采用了常规的MRI序列以及DWI和PWI(动态磁化率对比增强[DSC]成像)。用MEDx®处理灌注图,并通过识别缺血核心和错配区域以及正常镜面区域上的ROI获得参数。在评估中使用血液动力学灌注参数的相对值。结果:NIHSS评分范围为0至19(10.2±4.4),MRS评分范围为0至6(平均值:3.23)。在好转归组(MRS 0至3)和差转归组(MRS 4至6)之间,扫描时间,治疗类型,DW / PW体积比以及年龄和女性/男性比例没有显着差异。在缺血核心:rCBF在所有患者中平均显着下降59.3±33.7%(范围:23.2-97.4%)。 29例患者的rCBV下降41.7±23.7%(范围19.6-55.6%),而6例患者的rCBV升高60.4±57.1%(范围0.7 -139%)。整个组的平均rCBV变化为26.3±52.5%。 MTT,TTP和T0分别延长4.7(SD = 15.1),2.8(SD = 12.9)和0.5(SD = 10.4)秒。在失配区域:15例患者的rCBF降低了26.2±19.9%(范围:5.3- 58.4%),20例患者增加了35±23.2%(范围:6.8–74.4%)。整个患者组的rCBF变化为5.8±38.4%。 rCBV在7例患者中下降了14.7±16.5%(范围:0.8-44.5%),在28例患者中升高了39.5±36%(范围:2.2-91.1%)。整个组的rCBV平均变化为19.9±31.2%。 MTT,TTP和T0的平均值分别延长了2.7(SD = 8.5),3.2(SD = 5.2)和1.3(SD = 4.2)秒。在核心和错配区域,rCBF均显示出对MRS的统计学显着回归。 rCBF降低越多,MRS(不良结局)越高。而且,核心区域的MTT延迟与MRS显着相关。在核心和失配区域的TTP延迟与NIHSS和MRS均显着相关。比较CBV和T0与NIHSS或MRS的关系,没有统计学意义。结论:MR灌注成像的血流动力学参数可能有助于预测急性卒中患者的预后和严重程度。在失配区域,rCBF和TTP可预测中风的预后。

著录项

  • 作者

    Ma Jun;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2004
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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