{"title":"用于大血管闭塞性卒中血管内治疗的早期诊断和患者选择的干预前预后评分综述。","authors":"Syed Ali Raza, Srikant Rangaraju","doi":"10.1159/000486539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular therapy (ET) has emerged as a highly effective treatment for acute large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). Tools that facilitate optimal patient selection of patients for ET are needed in order to maximize therapeutic benefit in a cost-effective manner. Several pre-intervention prognostic scores for prediction of outcomes in LVOS patients and patient selection for ET have been developed and validated, but their clinical use has been limited. Here, we review existing pre-intervention prognostic scores, compare their prognostic accuracies and levels of validation and identify gaps in current knowledge.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We have reviewed published literature pertinent to development, validation, and implementation of pre-intervention prognostic scores for LVOS. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the prognostic accuracies of validated pre-interventional scores (Pittsburgh Response to Endovascular therapy [PRE], Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE], Houston Intra-Arterial Therapy-2 (HIAT-2), Stroke Prognostication using Age and NIHSS [SPAN-100]) were compared in published work. Pre-intervention scores predicted functional out comes at 3 months with moderate prognostic accuracies (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve range 0.68-0.73). Using successful reperfusion (mTICI 2B/3) as the therapeutic objective of ET and 3-month modified Rankin Score 0-2 as good clinical outcome, patients most likely to clinically benefit from endovascular reperfusion can be identified using the PRE and HIAT-2 scores. Scores that incorporate collateral imaging or perfusion-based estimation of core and penumbra have not been published. Existing scores are predominantly limited to anterior circulation LVOS, and implementation studies of pre-interventional scores are lacking.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Pre-intervention prognostic scores can serve as useful adjuncts for patient selection in ET for acute LVOS. Pre-intervention scores including HIAT-2, THRIVE, SPAN-100, and PRE have comparable moderate prognostic accuracies for good 3-month outcomes and can identify patients who derive maximal benefit from successful reperfusion. Improvements in prognostic accuracy may be achieved by incorporating variables such as collateral status and perfusion imaging data. Implementation and impact studies using pre-intervention scores are needed to guide clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":46280,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920952/pdf/ine-0007-0171.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Pre-Intervention Prognostic Scores for Early Prognostication and Patient Selection in Endovascular Management of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Syed Ali Raza, Srikant Rangaraju\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000486539\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular therapy (ET) has emerged as a highly effective treatment for acute large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). Tools that facilitate optimal patient selection of patients for ET are needed in order to maximize therapeutic benefit in a cost-effective manner. Several pre-intervention prognostic scores for prediction of outcomes in LVOS patients and patient selection for ET have been developed and validated, but their clinical use has been limited. Here, we review existing pre-intervention prognostic scores, compare their prognostic accuracies and levels of validation and identify gaps in current knowledge.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We have reviewed published literature pertinent to development, validation, and implementation of pre-intervention prognostic scores for LVOS. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the prognostic accuracies of validated pre-interventional scores (Pittsburgh Response to Endovascular therapy [PRE], Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE], Houston Intra-Arterial Therapy-2 (HIAT-2), Stroke Prognostication using Age and NIHSS [SPAN-100]) were compared in published work. Pre-intervention scores predicted functional out comes at 3 months with moderate prognostic accuracies (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve range 0.68-0.73). Using successful reperfusion (mTICI 2B/3) as the therapeutic objective of ET and 3-month modified Rankin Score 0-2 as good clinical outcome, patients most likely to clinically benefit from endovascular reperfusion can be identified using the PRE and HIAT-2 scores. Scores that incorporate collateral imaging or perfusion-based estimation of core and penumbra have not been published. Existing scores are predominantly limited to anterior circulation LVOS, and implementation studies of pre-interventional scores are lacking.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Pre-intervention prognostic scores can serve as useful adjuncts for patient selection in ET for acute LVOS. Pre-intervention scores including HIAT-2, THRIVE, SPAN-100, and PRE have comparable moderate prognostic accuracies for good 3-month outcomes and can identify patients who derive maximal benefit from successful reperfusion. Improvements in prognostic accuracy may be achieved by incorporating variables such as collateral status and perfusion imaging data. Implementation and impact studies using pre-intervention scores are needed to guide clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920952/pdf/ine-0007-0171.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000486539\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000486539","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:血管内治疗(ET)已成为治疗急性大血管闭塞性卒中(LVOS)的一种高效疗法。为了以具有成本效益的方式最大限度地提高治疗效果,我们需要能够帮助优化 ET 患者选择的工具。目前已开发并验证了几种用于预测 LVOS 患者预后和选择 ET 患者的干预前预后评分,但其临床应用还很有限。在此,我们回顾了现有的介入前预后评分,比较了它们的预后准确性和验证水平,并找出了当前知识的不足之处。摘要:我们回顾了已发表的有关 LVOS 介入前预后评分的开发、验证和实施的文献。通过接收器操作特征曲线分析,比较了已发表的文献中经验证的介入前评分(匹兹堡血管内治疗反应评分[PRE]、血管事件健康风险总计评分[THRIVE]、休斯顿动脉内治疗-2评分[HIAT-2]、使用年龄和NIHSS的卒中预后评分[SPAN-100])的预后准确性。干预前的评分可预测 3 个月后的功能障碍,预后准确度适中(接收器操作者特征曲线下的面积范围为 0.68-0.73)。以成功的再灌注(mTICI 2B/3)作为 ET 的治疗目标,以 3 个月的改良 Rankin 评分 0-2 作为良好的临床结果,使用 PRE 和 HIAT-2 评分可以确定最有可能从血管内再灌注中获益的患者。结合侧支成像或基于灌注的核心区和半影估计的评分尚未公布。现有的评分主要局限于前循环 LVOS,缺乏介入前评分的实施研究:干预前预后评分可作为急性 LVOS ET 患者选择的有用辅助工具。包括 HIAT-2、THRIVE、SPAN-100 和 PRE 在内的干预前评分对于 3 个月的良好预后具有可比的中等预后准确性,并能识别从成功再灌注中获得最大获益的患者。纳入侧支状态和灌注成像数据等变量可提高预后准确性。需要使用干预前评分进行实施和影响研究,以指导临床应用。
A Review of Pre-Intervention Prognostic Scores for Early Prognostication and Patient Selection in Endovascular Management of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.
Background: Endovascular therapy (ET) has emerged as a highly effective treatment for acute large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). Tools that facilitate optimal patient selection of patients for ET are needed in order to maximize therapeutic benefit in a cost-effective manner. Several pre-intervention prognostic scores for prediction of outcomes in LVOS patients and patient selection for ET have been developed and validated, but their clinical use has been limited. Here, we review existing pre-intervention prognostic scores, compare their prognostic accuracies and levels of validation and identify gaps in current knowledge.
Summary: We have reviewed published literature pertinent to development, validation, and implementation of pre-intervention prognostic scores for LVOS. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the prognostic accuracies of validated pre-interventional scores (Pittsburgh Response to Endovascular therapy [PRE], Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE], Houston Intra-Arterial Therapy-2 (HIAT-2), Stroke Prognostication using Age and NIHSS [SPAN-100]) were compared in published work. Pre-intervention scores predicted functional out comes at 3 months with moderate prognostic accuracies (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve range 0.68-0.73). Using successful reperfusion (mTICI 2B/3) as the therapeutic objective of ET and 3-month modified Rankin Score 0-2 as good clinical outcome, patients most likely to clinically benefit from endovascular reperfusion can be identified using the PRE and HIAT-2 scores. Scores that incorporate collateral imaging or perfusion-based estimation of core and penumbra have not been published. Existing scores are predominantly limited to anterior circulation LVOS, and implementation studies of pre-interventional scores are lacking.
Key messages: Pre-intervention prognostic scores can serve as useful adjuncts for patient selection in ET for acute LVOS. Pre-intervention scores including HIAT-2, THRIVE, SPAN-100, and PRE have comparable moderate prognostic accuracies for good 3-month outcomes and can identify patients who derive maximal benefit from successful reperfusion. Improvements in prognostic accuracy may be achieved by incorporating variables such as collateral status and perfusion imaging data. Implementation and impact studies using pre-intervention scores are needed to guide clinical application.