Symptomatic carotid webs and patent foramen ovale: RoPE score in competing stroke etiologies

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108437
{"title":"Symptomatic carotid webs and patent foramen ovale: RoPE score in competing stroke etiologies","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patent foramen ovale (PFO)-associated stroke is diagnosed more frequently in young patients with infrequent vascular risk factors and embolic appearing infarcts. The risk of paradoxical embolism (RoPE) score is used to identify PFO-associated stroke. Patients with symptomatic carotid artery web (CaW) share a very similar risk profile and these lesions are frequently overlooked. In this study, we evaluate the RoPE score profile in patients with suspected symptomatic CaW.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with symptomatic CaW as the presumed cause of stroke presenting to 2 comprehensive stroke centers from 2014 to 2021. CaW was diagnosed using computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the neck &amp; head. Shunt study was done using a transthoracic, transesophageal, and/or transcranial-Doppler with bubbles. RoPE score ≥7 was considered high.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventy-five patients had stroke from a symptomatic ipsilateral CaW. Mean age was 49.7±11.2 years and 74.7 % were females. Median RoPE score was 7 [5–8], and 52.0 % had a high RoPE score. PFO was detected in 13.3 % of the patients and 20.5 % within the high RoPE score group. Ten percent of the cases would have been misclassified as PFO-associated strokes based on RoPE score.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>High RoPE scores were observed in the majority of patients with CaW-attributed stroke, and it should not be used to differentiate CaW- versus PFO-associated stroke. Careful extracranial internal carotid artery evaluation for CaW is warranted in cryptogenic strokes, including in PFO positive patients before defining stroke etiology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10385,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030384672400324X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Patent foramen ovale (PFO)-associated stroke is diagnosed more frequently in young patients with infrequent vascular risk factors and embolic appearing infarcts. The risk of paradoxical embolism (RoPE) score is used to identify PFO-associated stroke. Patients with symptomatic carotid artery web (CaW) share a very similar risk profile and these lesions are frequently overlooked. In this study, we evaluate the RoPE score profile in patients with suspected symptomatic CaW.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with symptomatic CaW as the presumed cause of stroke presenting to 2 comprehensive stroke centers from 2014 to 2021. CaW was diagnosed using computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the neck & head. Shunt study was done using a transthoracic, transesophageal, and/or transcranial-Doppler with bubbles. RoPE score ≥7 was considered high.

Results

Seventy-five patients had stroke from a symptomatic ipsilateral CaW. Mean age was 49.7±11.2 years and 74.7 % were females. Median RoPE score was 7 [5–8], and 52.0 % had a high RoPE score. PFO was detected in 13.3 % of the patients and 20.5 % within the high RoPE score group. Ten percent of the cases would have been misclassified as PFO-associated strokes based on RoPE score.

Conclusion

High RoPE scores were observed in the majority of patients with CaW-attributed stroke, and it should not be used to differentiate CaW- versus PFO-associated stroke. Careful extracranial internal carotid artery evaluation for CaW is warranted in cryptogenic strokes, including in PFO positive patients before defining stroke etiology.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有症状的颈动脉网和闭孔:脑卒中病因竞争中的 RoPE 评分
背景导管卵圆孔(PFO)相关性卒中多见于血管风险因素不常见和栓塞性脑梗死的年轻患者。矛盾性栓塞风险(RoPE)评分用于识别 PFO 相关中风。无症状颈动脉蹼(CaW)患者的风险情况非常相似,这些病变经常被忽视。方法回顾性分析前瞻性收集的 2014 年至 2021 年期间在 2 个综合卒中中心就诊的推测卒中原因为无症状颈动脉网的患者数据。CaW是通过颈部和头部的计算机断层扫描血管造影(CTA)确诊的。使用经胸、经食道和/或经颅多普勒对气泡进行分流研究。RoPE评分≥7分为高分。平均年龄为 49.7±11.2 岁,74.7% 为女性。RoPE 评分中位数为 7 [5-8],52.0% 的患者 RoPE 评分较高。在 13.3% 的患者中发现了 PFO,在 RoPE 高分组中发现了 20.5%。根据 RoPE 评分,10% 的病例会被误诊为 PFO 相关性卒中。在确定卒中病因之前,应对隐源性卒中患者(包括 PFO 阳性患者)的颅内外颈内动脉进行仔细的 CaW 评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
358
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery is devoted to publishing papers and reports on the clinical aspects of neurology and neurosurgery. It is an international forum for papers of high scientific standard that are of interest to Neurologists and Neurosurgeons world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of pain phenotypes and co-morbidities of chronic pain in Parkinson’s Disease Letter to the editor: “Endovascular treatment of mycotic aneurysms: An update meta-analysis” Changes in gut microbiome can be associated with abrupt seizure exacerbation in epilepsy patients Analysis of recurrence factors after balloon compression for trigeminal neuralgia and the relationship between pear-shaped balloon and guidewire path Complications during and after ICU stay are associated with increased mortality after status epilepticus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1