Key result
Poor HIR linked to ~42% lower odds of good functional recovery after thrombectomy.
Why the study?
Does poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy compared to good HIR?
Population
14 studies pooling 2987 patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy
Comparison
Poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) vs Good hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR)
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Loading...
Poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio is a significant predictor of increased infarct growth, higher 3-month mortality, and reduced functional recovery in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.
Meta-Analysis (n=2,987)
Does poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy compared to good HIR?
Odds Ratio: 0.58 (95% CI 0.42–0.8)
p-value: p=<0.01
Poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio is a significant predictor of increased infarct growth, higher 3-month mortality, and reduced functional recovery in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.
Jazayeri et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in acute ischemic stroke (n=2,987). Poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) vs. Good hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) was evaluated on Good functional recovery (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 at 3 months) (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, p=<0.01). Poor hypoperfusion intensity ratio in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy was associated with lower odds of good functional recovery at 3 months (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.80; P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: