Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36127828›Full record

ArticleJournal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism2023

Poor venous outflow profiles increase the risk of reperfusion hemorrhage after endovascular treatment.

Laurens Winkelmeier, Jeremy J Heit, Gautam Adusumilli, Vincent Geest, Adrien Guenego, Gabriel Broocks, Julia Prüter, Nils-Ole Gloyer, Lukas Meyer, Helge Kniep and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Laurens WinkelmeierDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9103-5983
Jeremy J HeitDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1055-8000
Gautam AdusumilliDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Vincent GeestDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Adrien GuenegoDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Gabriel BroocksDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7575-9850
Julia PrüterDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils-Ole GloyerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0768-660X
Lukas MeyerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3776-638X
Helge KniepDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5258-2370
Maarten G LansbergDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3545-6927
Gregory W AlbersDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Max WintermarkDepartment of Neuroradiology, MD Andersen Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jens FiehlerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Tobias D FaizyDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate whether unfavorable cerebral venous outflow (VO) predicts reperfusion hemorrhage after endovascular treatment (EVT), we conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO). 629 AIS-LVO patients met inclusion criteria. VO profiles were assessed on admission CT angiography using the Cortical Vein Opacification Score (COVES). Unfavorable VO was defined as COVES ≤ 2. Reperfusion hemorrhages on follow-up imaging were subdivided into no hemorrhage (noRH), hemorrhagic infarction (HI) and parenchymal hematoma (PH). Patients with PH and HI less frequently achieved good clinical outcomes defined as 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores of ≤ 2 (PH: 13.6% vs. HI: 24.6% vs. noRH: 44.1%; p < 0.001). The occurrence of HI and PH on follow-up imaging was more likely in patients with unfavorable compared to patients with favorable VO (HI: 25.1% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.023; PH: 18.3% vs. 8.5%; p = <0.001). In multivariable regression analyses, unfavorable VO increased the likelihood of PH (aOR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.03-3.37, p = 0.044) and HI (aOR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.25-3.43, p = 0.005), independent of age, sex, admission National Institutes Health Stroke Scale scores and arterial collateral status. We conclude that unfavorable VO was associated with the occurrence of HI and PH, both related to worse clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeCohort StudiesHumanscerebral edemacerebrovascular circulationIschemic strokeneuroimagingthrombectomy

Identifiers

PMID36127828
PMCPMC9875351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.