You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical Neurology
Case series
Interaction between time, ASPECTS, and clinical mismatch
  1. Shashvat M Desai1,
  2. Daniel A Tonetti2,
  3. Bradley J Molyneaux3,
  4. Kunakorn Atchaneeyasakul1,
  5. Marcelo Rocha3,
  6. Tudor G Jovin4,
  7. Ashutosh P Jadhav3
  1. 1 Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4 Neurology, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ashutosh P Jadhav, Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; jadhav.library{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Imaging-based patient selection for neurothrombectomy is reliant on the identification of irreversibly damaged brain tissue (core) and salvageable tissue (penumbra). The DAWN trial used the clinical-core mismatch (CCM) paradigm (clinical deficit out of proportion to infarct volume). We aim to determine the prevalence of CCM in large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes and study the impact of time and the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) on the likelihood of mismatch.

Methods We performed a retrospective observational analysis of internal carotid artery/middle cerebral artery M1 occlusions with available advanced imaging (relative cerebral blood flow/MRI). We used automated software for infarct volume analysis and ASPECTS determination. The prevalence of CCM and the impact of time and ASPECTS were analyzed.

Result One hundred and eighty-five LVO strokes were included. Mean age was 71±15 years and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17 (range 12–21). Mean ischemic core volume was 50±69 mL. Within 0–24 hours, CCM was present in 53% and ranged from 63% in 0–3 hours to 25% at 21–24 hours (p=0.03). Prevalence of mismatch reduced 1.6% for every 1 hour increase in time to imaging. CCM prevalence by ASPECTS groups was: ASPECTS 9–10: 77%, ASPECTS 6–8: 65%, ASPECTS 0–5: 13% (p<0.01), with a 6.4% decrement for every 1 point decrease in ASPECTS. The prevalence of mismatch did not diminish over time among ASPECTS groups and higher ASPECTS was an independent predictor of CCM (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7), p<0.001).

Conclusions CCM is present in 57% and 50% of LVO strokes in the 0–6 and 6–24 hour window, respectively. The prevalence of mismatch declines with increasing time (1.6%/hour) and decreasing ASPECTS (6.4%/point). Among ASPECTS groups the prevalence of mismatch does not decline over time. These data support the use of an ASPECTS-based paradigm for late window patient selection.

  • stroke
  • blood flow
  • intervention

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015921

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @shashvatdesaiMD, @ashupjadhav

    • Contributors Conception and design: SMD, APJ. Acquisition of data: SMD. Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting the article: SMD, APJ. Critically revising the article: All authors. Administrative/technical/material support: All authors. Study supervision: APJ.

    • Funding Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U10NS086489 (NIH Stroke Trials Network-Regional Coordinating Center University of Pittsburgh).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.