These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison Between Perfusion- and Collateral-Based Triage for Endovascular Thrombectomy in a Late Time Window.
    Author: Kim B, Jung C, Nam HS, Kim BM, Kim YD, Heo JH, Kim DJ, Kim JH, Han K, Kim JH, Kim BJ.
    Journal: Stroke; 2019 Dec; 50(12):3465-3470. PubMed ID: 31665993.
    Abstract:
    Background and Purpose- Perfusion-based triage has proven to be effective and safe for selecting patients who are likely to benefit from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in a late time window. We investigated collateral-based triage for EVT in patients presenting beyond 6 hours, in terms of interrater reliability and efficacy in predicting clinical outcome, in comparison to perfusion-based triage. Methods- One hundred and thirty-two patients who underwent both computed tomographic angiography and computed tomography perfusion for anterior circulation large artery occlusion 6 to 24 hours after last seen well were enrolled. Patients were classified into EVT-eligible and EVT-ineligible groups according to perfusion- and collateral-based triages. We evaluated the interrater reliability of collateral-based triage and differences in good outcome rates of patients who received EVT in the EVT-eligible groups based on perfusion- and collateral-based triages. Results- Both computed tomographic angiography and computed tomography perfusion were assessable in 93 patients. Seventy-six patients were eligible for EVT according to perfusion-based triage. Among them, EVT was performed in 58, of whom 32 (55.1%) had good outcome. Sixty-nine patients were eligible for EVT based on collateral-based triage. Among them, EVT was performed in 50 patients, of whom 31 (62.0%) had good outcome. Interrater reliability of collateral-based triage was good (generalized κ=0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]). Agreement on EVT eligibility between perfusion- and collateral-based triages was moderate (κ=0.41 [95% CI, 0.16-0.61]). There was no difference in good outcome rates of patients who underwent EVT in the EVT-eligible groups based on perfusion- and collateral-based triages (55.1% versus 62.0%; P=0.0675). Conclusions- Collateral-based triage showed good interrater reliability and comparable efficacy to that of perfusion-based triage in predicting clinical outcome after EVT in patients presenting beyond 6 hours. Collateral-based triage is a reliable approach for selecting patients for EVT in the extended therapeutic time window.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]