Loading…

Cortical Vein Opacification for Risk Stratification in Anterior Circulation Endovascular Thrombectomy

Introduction: There is continued interest in identifying factors that predict a favorable outcome after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (ACLVO). We compared the predictive values of 2 different scoring systems for evaluating venous collateral circulati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases 2019-06, Vol.28 (6), p.1710-1717
Main Authors: Hoffman, Haydn, Ziechmann, Robert, Swarnkar, Amar, Masoud, Hesham E., Gould, Grahame
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction: There is continued interest in identifying factors that predict a favorable outcome after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (ACLVO). We compared the predictive values of 2 different scoring systems for evaluating venous collateral circulation. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent EVT for ACLVO at a single institution was performed. Those who underwent preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) were selected. The Cortical Vein Opacification Score (COVES) and Prognostic Evaluation based on Cortical vein score difference In Stroke (PRECISE) score were calculated from each patient's CTA. Our primary outcome of interest was the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Results: A total of 103 patients were included in the study (average age = 68.3 years, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale = 15). The mean time to reperfusion was 6.4 hours and Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2B or 3 reperfusion was achieved in 77.7% of cases. An unfavorable COVES score was significantly associated with an unfavorable (mRS 3-6) outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-8.13, P = .025), while an unfavorable PRECISE score was not (aOR: 1.02; 95% CI .37-2.80, P = .966). Based on the Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis, the COVES score had a sensitivity of 68.1%, specificity of 71.4%, and area under the curve (AUC) of .77. The PRECISE score had a sensitivity of 68.9%, specificity of 70.7%, and the AUC of .73. Conclusions: The COVES score, but not the PRECISE score, is associated with functional outcomes at 90 days after EVT for ACLVO.
ISSN:1052-3057
1532-8511
DOI:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.02.016