ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Perivenous-enhanced cortical veins on contrast-enhanced black-blood MRI: a novel marker for blood-brain barrier disruption in ischemic stroke.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility of using perivenous-enhanced cortical veins (PECVs) visualized on contrast-enhanced black-blood MRI (CEBBI) for detecting and classifying blood-brain barrier disruption (BBBD) in patients with ischemic stroke. MATERIALS &
methodsThis retrospective study included 168 hospitalized patients with acute, subacute, and chronic ischemic stroke who underwent pre- and post-CEBBI imaging. BBBD was classified into three groups based on the enhancement ratio (ER) of normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) before and after contrast administration, as well as leptomeningeal and parenchymal enhancement patterns on CEBBI: no BBBD (NoBBBD), subtle BBBD (SuBBBD), and significant BBBD (SiBBBD). The number of PECVs was recorded bilaterally from the CEBBI source images. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with BBBD.
resultsIncreased BBBD was significantly associated with a higher number of PECVs in both the ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres of the infarct (all p < 0.01). Patients with SuBBBD had significantly more PECVs than those with NoBBBD (median: 14 vs. 3, p < 0.01), and the SiBBBD group had significantly more PECVs than the SuBBBD group (median: 18 vs. 14, p < 0.01). In the ipsilateral hemisphere, a median PECV count of 4.5 distinguished NoBBBD from SuBBBD with 83.3% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity. Similarly, a median count of 8.5 PECVs discriminated SuBBBD from SiBBBD with 78.5% sensitivity and 85.0% specificity.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrated that PECVs are more numerous in the SiBBBD group compared to SuBBBD and NoBBBD groups. The number of PECVs detected on high-resolution post-CEBBI provides a reliable, semi-quantitative method for identifying and classifying BBBD in patients with ischemic stroke. This method offers a direct assessment of BBB integrity and could improve clinical evaluation of stroke-related BBB disruption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40498335What 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.