PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 1, 2001Brain552 citationsOpen Access

Severely impaired cerebrovascular reactivity predicts stroke and TIA risk in patients with carotid artery stenosis and occlusion

View Full Paper
HMHugh S. Markus

Key Result

Exhausted cerebrovascular reactivity independently predicted ipsilateral stroke and TIA risk in patients with carotid stenosis or occlusion (OR 14.4; 95% CI 2.63-78.74; P=0.0021).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=107)

Structured PICO

Does exhausted cerebrovascular reactivity predict the risk of ipsilateral stroke and TIA in patients with carotid artery stenosis or occlusion?

P
Population
107 patients with either carotid occlusion (n = 48) or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (n = 59).
I
Intervention
Exhausted ipsilateral middle cerebral artery reactivity (>20% increase in ipsilateral middle cerebral flow velocity in response to 8% carbon dioxide) measured by transcranial Doppler ultrasonography
C
Comparator
Non-exhausted cerebrovascular reactivity
O
Outcome
Ipsilateral stroke and TIAhard clinical

Severely impaired cerebrovascular reactivity, measured by transcranial Doppler, is a strong independent predictor of ipsilateral stroke and TIA in patients with carotid occlusion or asymptomatic stenosis.

Main Result

Effect estimate: OR 14.4 (95% CI 2.63-78.74)

p-value: p=0.0021

Abstract

Cross-sectional studies suggest that impaired cerebral haemodynamics is associated with symptomatic status in patients with carotid stenosis and occlusion, but there is relatively little prospective data confirming this association. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography was used to determine the reactivity of the middle cerebral artery to 8% carbon dioxide in air in 107 patients with either carotid occlusion (n = 48) or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (n = 59). Subjects were followed prospectively until stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), death or study end. Mean duration of follow-up was 635 days. No patients dropped out due to operation before an end-point was reached, or were lost to follow-up. There were 11 ipsilateral ischaemic events during follow-up (six strokes, five TIAs). Exhausted ipsilateral middle cerebral artery reactivity (>20% increase in ipsilateral middle cerebral flow velocity in response to 8% carbon dioxide) predicted ipsilateral stroke and TIA risk in the whole group (P: < 0.00001) and in the carotid occlusion (P: = 0.019) and carotid stenosis (P: = 0.015) groups alone. It also predicted the risk of ipsilateral stroke alone in all three groups. Cox regression was performed, controlling for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, ipsilateral CT infarct, degree of contralateral stenosis and the presence of ipsilateral stenosis versus occlusion. Exhausted reactivity remained an independent predictor of ipsilateral stroke and TIA (odds ratio 14.4, 95% confidence interval 2.63-78.74, P: = 0.0021). In contrast, the pulsatility index of the middle cerebral artery was a poor predictor of the risk of stroke. Reactivity to 6% carbon dioxide also predicted the risk of stroke and TIA, but slightly less effectively than reactivity to 8% carbon dioxide. Severely reduced cerebrovascular reactivity predicts the risk of ipsilateral stroke and TIA in patients with carotid occlusion, and to a lesser extent in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Particularly in the former group, a study is required to determine whether revascularization reduces the risk of stroke in patients with exhausted reactivity.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hugh S. Markus (2001) conducted a cohort in Carotid artery stenosis and occlusion (n=107). Exhausted cerebrovascular reactivity vs. Normal cerebrovascular reactivity was evaluated on Ipsilateral stroke and TIA (OR 14.4, 95% CI 2.63-78.74, p=0.0021). Exhausted cerebrovascular reactivity independently predicted ipsilateral stroke and TIA risk in patients with carotid stenosis or occlusion (OR 14.4; 95% CI 2.63-78.74; P=0.0021).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1771c11b114e5976b40febhttps://doi.org/10.1093/brain/124.3.457
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper