Intracranial Cerebrospinal Fluid Volume as a Predictor of Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction
Intracranial Cerebrospinal Fluid Volume as a Predictor of Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction
复制标题
DOI:
10.1161/strokeaha.119.024882
复制
发表时间:
2019-06-01
期刊:
影响因子:
8.3
通讯作者:
van der Graaf, Y.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Kauw, Frans;Bennink, Edwin;van der Graaf, Y.
Background and Purpose Predicting malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction can help to identify patients who may benefit from preventive decompressive surgery. We aimed to investigate the association between the ratio of intracranial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volume to intracranial volume (ICV) and malignant MCA infarction.Methods Patients with an occlusion proximal to the M3 segment of the MCA were selected from the DUST (Dutch Acute Stroke Study). Admission imaging included noncontrast computed tomography (CT), CT perfusion, and CT angiography. Patient characteristics and CT findings were collected. The ratio of intracranial CSF volume to ICV (CSF/ICV) was quantified on admission thin-slice noncontrast CT. Malignant MCA infarction was defined as a midline shift of >5 mm on follow-up noncontrast CT, which was performed 3 days after the stroke or in case of clinical deterioration. To test the association between CSF/ICV and malignant MCA infarction, odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated for 3 multivariable models by using binary logistic regression. Model performances were compared by using the likelihood ratio test.Results Of the 286 included patients, 35 (12%) developed malignant MCA infarction. CSF/ICV was independently associated with malignant MCA infarction in 3 multivariable models: (1) with age and admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-11.1), (2) with admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and poor collateral score (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% CI, 2.6-21.3), and (3) with terminal internal carotid artery or proximal M1 occlusion and poor collateral score (odds ratio, 7.7; 95% CI, 2.8-23.9). The performance of model 1 (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, 0.795 versus 0.824; P=0.033), model 2 (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, 0.813 versus 0.850; P