ArticleNeurointervention2019
Dichotomizing Level of Pial Collaterals on Multiphase CT Angiography for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Should It Be Refined for 6-Hour Time Window?
Article in Neurointervention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pivotal role of multiphase computed tomography angiography for collateral assessment in patients with acute ischemic stroke.La Radiologia medica · 2023Review
- Direct Stenting of Intracranial Atherosclerosis-related Acute Large Vessel Occlusion.Clinical neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Mechanical Thrombectomy using Penumbra ACEBrain sciences · 2021Article
- Hypoperfusion Index Ratio as a Surrogate of Collateral Scoring on CT Angiogram in Large Vessel Stroke.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough endovascular treatment is currently thought to only be suitable for patients who have pial arterial filling scores >3 as determined by multiphase computed tomography angiography (mpCTA), a cut-off score of 3 was determined by a study, including patients within 12 hours after symptom onset. We aimed to investigate whether a cut-off score of 3 for endovascular treatment within 6 hours of symptom onset is an appropriate predictor of good functional outcome at 3 months. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom April 2015 to January 2016, acute ischemic stroke patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy within 6 hours of symptom onset were enrolled into this study. Pial arterial filling scores were semi-quantitatively assessed using mpCTA, and clinical and radiological parameters were compared between patients with favorable and unfavorable outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was then performed to investigate the independent association between clinical outcome and pial collateral score, with the predictive power of the latter assessed using C-statistics.
resultsOf the 38 patients enrolled, 20 (52.6%) had a favorable outcome and 18 had an unfavorable outcome, with the latter group showing a lower mean pial arterial filling score (3.6±0.8 vs. 2.4±1.2, P=0.002). After adjusting for variables with a P-value of <0.1 in univariate analysis (i.e., age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission), pial arterial filling scores higher than a cut-off of 2 were found to be independently associated with favorable clinical outcomes (P=0.012). C-statistic analysis confirmed that our model had the highest prediction power when pial arterial filling scores were dichotomized at >2 vs. ≤2.
conclusionA pial arterial filling cut-off score of 2 as determined by mpCTA appears to be more suitable for predicting clinical outcomes following endovascular treatment within 6 hours of symptom onset than the cut-off of 3 that had been previously suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.