↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Imaging Factors Associated With Infarct Progression in Patients With Ischemic Stroke During Transfer for Mechanical Thrombectomy

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Neurology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
52 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical Imaging Factors Associated With Infarct Progression in Patients With Ischemic Stroke During Transfer for Mechanical Thrombectomy
Published in
JAMA Neurology, November 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregoire Boulouis, Arne Lauer, Ahmer Khawdja Siddiqui, Andreas Charidimou, Robert W. Regenhardt, Anand Viswanathan, Natalia Rost, Thabele M. Leslie-Mazwi, Lee H. Schwamm

Abstract

When transferred from a referring hospital (RH) to a thrombectomy-capable stroke center (TCSC), patients with initially favorable imaging profiles (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] ≥6) often demonstrate infarct progression significant enough to make them ineligible for mechanical thrombectomy at arrival. In rapidly evolving stroke care networks, the question of the need for vascular imaging at the RHs remains unsolved, resulting in an important amount of futile transfers for thrombectomy. To examine the clinical imaging factors associated with unfavorable imaging profile evolution for thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke initially transferred to non-TCSCs. Data from patients transferred from 1 of 30 RHs in our regional stroke network and presenting at our TCSC from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016, were retrospectively analyzed. Consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke initially admitted to a non-thrombectomy-capable RH and transferred to our center for which a RH computed tomography (CT) and a CT angiography (CTA) at arrival were available for review. ASPECTS were evaluated. The adequacy of leptomeningeal collateral blood flow was rated as no or poor, decreased, adequate, or augmented per the adapted Maas scale. The main outcome was an ASPECTS decay, defined as an initial ASPECTS of 6 or higher worsening between RH and TCSC CTs to a score of less than 6 (making the patient less likely to derive clinical benefit from thrombectomy at arrival). A total of 316 patients were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 70.3 [14.2] years; 137 [43.4%] female). In multivariable models, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Score, lower baseline ASPECTSs, and no or poor collateral blood vessel status were associated with ASPECTS decay, with collateral blood vessel status demonstrating the highest adjusted odds ratio of 5.14 (95% CI, 2.20-12.70; P < .001). Similar results were found after stratification by vessel occlusion level. In patients with ischemic stroke transferred for thrombectomy, poor collateral blood flow and stroke clinical severity are the main determinants of ASPECTS decay. Our findings suggest that in certain subgroups vascular imaging, including collateral assessment, can play a crucial role in determining the benefits of transfer for thrombectomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 21%
Other 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 38%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#776,291
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#972
of 5,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,465
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#23
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.