Extending the Time Window for Endovascular Procedures According to Collateral Pial Circulation
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background and Purpose—Good collateral pial circulation (CPC) predicts a favorable outcome in patients undergoing intra-arterial procedures. We aimed to determine if CPC status may be used to decide about pursuing recanalization efforts.
Methods—Pial collateral score (0–5) was determined on initial angiogram. We considered good CPC when pial collateral score <3, defined total time of ischemia (TTI) as onset-to-recanalization time, and clinical improvement >4-point decline in admission–discharge National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.
Results—We studied CPC in 61 patients (31 middle cerebral artery, 30 internal carotid artery). Good CPC patients (n=21 [34%]) had lower discharge National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (7 versus 21; P=0.02) and smaller infarcts (56 mL versus 238 mL; P<0.001). In poor CPC patients, a receiver operating characteristic curve defined a TTI cutoff point <300 minutes (sensitivity 67%, specificity 75%) that better predicted clinical improvement (TTI <300: 66.7% versus TTI >300: 25%; P=0.05). For good CPC patients, no temporal cutoff point could be defined. Although clinical improvement was similar for patients recanalizing within 300 minutes (poor CPC: 60% versus good CPC: 85.7%; P=0.35), the likelihood of clinical improvement was 3-fold higher after 300 minutes only in good CPC patients (23.1% versus 90.1%; P=0.01). Similarly, infarct volume was reduced 7-fold in good as compared with poor CPC patients only when TTI >300 minutes (TTI <300: poor CPC: 145 mL versus good CPC: 93 mL; P=0.56 and TTI >300: poor CPC: 217 mL versus good CPC: 33 mL; P<0.01). After adjusting for age and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, TTI <300 emerged as an independent predictor of clinical improvement in poor CPC patients (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.01–44.3; P=0.05) but not in good CPC patients. In a logistic regression, good CPC independently predicted clinical improvement after adjusting for TTI, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and age (OR, 12.5; 95% CI, 1.6–74.8; P=0.016).
Conclusions—Good CPC predicts better clinical response to intra-arterial treatment beyond 5 hours from onset. In patients with stroke receiving endovascular treatment, identification of good CPC may help physicians when considering pursuing recanalization efforts in late time windows.
- Received April 30, 2011.
- Revision received June 19, 2011.
- Accepted July 13, 2011.
- © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc.