Clarifying Differences Among Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Scale Variants

Author:

Suh Sang Hyun1,Cloft Harry J.1,Fugate Jennifer E.1,Rabinstein Alejandro A.1,Liebeskind David S.1,Kallmes David F.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (S.H.S.); Department of Radiology (S.H.S., H.J.C., D.F.K.), Department of Neurology (J.E.F., A.A.R.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (D.S.L.).

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Although thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 has been regarded as a successful angiographic outcome, the definition or subclassification of TICI 2 has differed between the original (o-TICI) and modified TICI (m-TICI). We sought to compare interobserver variability for both scores and analyze the subgroups of the TICI 2. Methods— Five readers interpreted angiographies independently using a 6-point scale as follows: grade 0, no antegrade flow; grade 1, flow past the initial occlusion without tissue reperfusion; grade 2, partial reperfusion in <50% of the affected territory; grade 3, partial reperfusion in 50% to 66%; grade 4, partial reperfusion in ≥67%; grade 5, complete perfusion. Readings using this scale were then converted into o-TICI and m-TICI score. Statistical analysis was performed according to TICI 2 subgroups. Results— Interobserver agreement was good for the o-TICI and m-TICI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). Our grade 3 (partial perfusion with 50% to 66%) occupied 19% of total readings, which would have been classified as grade 2a in o-TICI, but as 2b in m-TICI. The m-TICI was more likely to predict good clinical outcome than o-TICI (odds ratio, 2.01 versus 1.63, in reads with TICI 2b/3 versus 0/2a). Conclusions— Both TICI scales showed good agreement among readers. However, the variability in partial perfusion thresholds leads to different grading in ≈20% of cases and may result in significantly different rates of accurate outcome prediction.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Advanced and Specialised Nursing,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Clinical Neurology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3