Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Angiographic collateral venous phase: a novel landmark for leptomeningeal collaterals evaluation in acute ischemic stroke
  1. Arturo Consoli1,2,
  2. Silvia Pizzuto1,
  3. Alessandro Sgreccia1,
  4. Federico Di Maria1,
  5. Oguzhan Coskun1,
  6. Georges Rodesch1,
  7. Bertrand Lapergue3,
  8. Jacques Felblinger2,4,
  9. Bailiang Chen2,4,
  10. Serge Bracard4,5
  1. 1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines University, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France
  2. 2CIC, Innovation Technologique, Université de Lorraine, INSERM, Nancy, France
  3. 3Department of Neurology, Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines University, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France
  4. 4IADI, Université de Lorraine, INSERM, Nancy, France
  5. 5Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, Université de Lorraine, Nancy University Hospital, Nancy Regional University Hospital Center, Nancy, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Arturo Consoli, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines University, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes 92150, France; onemed21{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Although recanalization rates constantly increase (>80%), a favorable clinical outcome is achieved in only 45–55% of patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for anterior circulation stroke. Collateral circulation seems to play a major role in determining this discrepancy. The aim of the study was to investigate a novel angiographic landmark assessing the collateral venous phase (CVP) compared with the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology/Society of Interventional Radiology (ASITN/SIR) score, based on the arterial collateral assessment.

Methods Two hundred patients with anterior circulation stroke treated by MT between 2016 and 2021 were included. The ASITN/SIR score and the presence of CVP were blindly evaluated by expert neuroradiologists. Three subanalyses were performed comparing patients with good versus poor collaterals, CVP presence versus absence, and a composite analysis including both ASITN/SIR and CVP grading results.

Results Good collateral circulation (ASITN >2) was observed in 113 patients (56.5%) whereas CVP was present in 90 patients (45%) and mostly in patients with good collaterals. Favorable clinical and neuroradiological outcomes were more likely observed in patients with both good collaterals and the presence of CVP than in those with good collaterals and absence of CVP (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2: 77.3% vs 7.9%, p<0.0001; mortality: 9.3% vs 26.3%, p=0.02; 24-hour Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score: 8 vs 6, p<0.0001), while ASITN/SIR score alone was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes.

Conclusions The presence of CVP improves the angiographic assessment of collateral circulation. CVP could be proposed as a new imaging landmark to better understand the functionality of collaterals.

  • Stroke
  • Angiography
  • Thrombectomy
  • Thrombolysis

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.