Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on June 5, 2008

Stroke. 2008
Published online before print June 5, 2008, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.507111
A more recent version of this article appeared on August 1, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
39/8/2336    most recent
STROKEAHA.107.507111v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dani, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Muir, K. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dani, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Muir, K. W.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Clinical Trials
*Stroke
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Ethics and Policy
Right arrow CT and MRI
Right arrow Acute Stroke Syndromes
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Submitted on October 29, 2007
Revised on December 13, 2007
Accepted on January 3, 2008

Brain Lesion Volume and Capacity for Consent in Stroke Trials. Potential Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Surrogate Markers

Krishna A. Dani MRCP; Michael T. McCormick MRCP; and Keith W. Muir MD, FRCP*

From the Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Glasgow, Institute of Neurological Sciences, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: k.muir{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk.

Background and Purpose—European directives and legislation in some countries forbid inclusion of subjects incapable of consent in research if recruitment of patients capable of consent will yield similar results. We compared brain lesion volumes in stroke patients deemed to have capacity to consent with those defined as incapacitated.

Methods—Data were obtained from 3 trials recruiting patients primarily with cortical stroke syndromes. Patients were recruited within 24 hours of onset and used MRI based selection or outcome criteria. Method of recruitment was recorded with stroke severity, age, and brain lesion volumes on Diffusion Weighted Imaging.

Results—Of the 56 subjects included, 38 (68%) were recruited by assent and 18 (32%) by consent. The assent group had a median lesion volume of 18.35 cubic centimetres (cc) (interquartile range [IQR] 8.27–110.31 cc), compared to 2.79 cc (IQR 1.31–12.33 cc) when patients consented (P=0.0004). Lesions were smaller than 5 cc in 7/38 (18%) in the assent group and 11/18 (61%) in the consent group (P=0.0024). There was good correlation between neurological deficit by NIH stroke scale score and lesion volume (r=0.584, P<0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrated NIHSS or lesion volume predicted capacity to consent.

Conclusions—Patients with acute stroke who retain capacity to consent have significantly smaller infarct volumes than those incapable of consent, and these are frequently below the limits where measurement error significantly compromises valid use of volumetric end points. Only a small proportion of patients with capacity to consent would be eligible for, and contribute usefully to, most acute stroke trial protocols.


Key words: clinical trials • informed consent • magnetic resonance imaging • ethics




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NeurologyHome page
S. E. Kasner, A. Del Giudice, S. Rosenberg, M. Sheen, J. M. Luciano, B. L. Cucchiara, S. R. Messe, L. H. Sansing, and J. M. Baren
Who will participate in acute stroke trials?
Neurology, May 12, 2009; 72(19): 1682 - 1688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]