Cargando…

Prediction of Stroke Subtype and Recanalization Using Susceptibility Vessel Sign on Susceptibility-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) is a hypointense signal visualized because of the susceptibility effect of thrombi, sensitively detected on susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. The relationship of SVS parameters with the stroke subtype and recanalization...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Dong-Wan, Jeong, Han-Gil, Kim, Do Yeon, Yang, Wookjin, Lee, Seung-Hoon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436734/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28432264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016217
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) is a hypointense signal visualized because of the susceptibility effect of thrombi, sensitively detected on susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. The relationship of SVS parameters with the stroke subtype and recanalization status after endovascular treatment remains uncertain. METHODS—: The data from 89 patients with acute stroke caused by anterior circulation infarcts who underwent susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging before endovascular treatment were examined. Independent reviewers, blinded to the stroke subtype and recanalization status, measured the SVS diameter, length, and estimated volume. The intra- and interrater agreements of the SVS parameters were assessed. RESULTS—: The SVS was identified in 78% of the patients. SVS was more commonly associated with cardioembolism than with noncardioembolism (P=0.01). The SVS diameter (P<0.01) and length (P=0.01) were larger in the cardioembolism group. The SVS diameter was larger in the recanalization group (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≥2b) than in the nonrecanalization group (P=0.04). Multivariable analysis revealed that the SVS diameter was an independent predictor of cardioembolism (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.34–2.90; P<0.01). There was no significant association between the SVS volume and the recanalization status (adjusted odds ratio, 1.003; 95% confidence interval, 0.999–1.006; P=0.12). The optimal cutoff value of the SVS diameter for the cardioembolism was 5.5 mm (sensitivity, 45.6%; specificity, 93.8%). CONCLUSIONS—: Increased SVS diameter on susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging may predict cardioembolism. No clear association was found between SVS volume and endovascular recanalization.