Capillary Index Score and Correlation with Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis.

Manoj Jagani, Waleed Brinjikji, Mohammad H Murad, Alejandro A Rabinstein, Harry J Cloft, David F Kallmes
{"title":"Capillary Index Score and Correlation with Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Manoj Jagani,&nbsp;Waleed Brinjikji,&nbsp;Mohammad H Murad,&nbsp;Alejandro A Rabinstein,&nbsp;Harry J Cloft,&nbsp;David F Kallmes","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The capillary index score (CIS) has been recently introduced as a metric for rating the collateral circulation of ischemic stroke patients. Multiple studies in the last five years have evaluated the correlation of good CIS with clinical outcomes and suggested the use of CIS in selecting patients for endovascular treatment. We performed a meta-analysis of these studies comparing CIS with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a computerized search of three databases from January 2011 to November 2015 for studies related to CIS and outcomes. A CIS = 0 or 1 is considered poor (pCIS) and a CIS = 2 or 3 is considered favorable (fCIS). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we evaluated the relationship of CIS to neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 2), recanalization, and post-treatment hemorrhage. Meta-regression analysis of good neurological outcome was performed for adjusting baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies totaling 338 patients (212 with fCISs and 126 with pCISs) were included in the analysis. Patients with fCIS had higher likelihood of good neurological outcome [relative risk (RR) = 3.03; confidence interval (CI) = 95%, 2.05-4.47; <i>p</i> < 0.001] and lower risk of post-treatment hemorrhage (RR = 0.38; CI = 95%, 0.19-0.93; <i>p</i> = 0.04) as compared with patients in the pCIS group. When adjusting for baseline NIHSS, patients with fCIS had higher RR of good neurological outcome when compared with those with pCIS (RR = 2.94; CI = 95%, 1.23-7, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Favorable CIS was not associated with higher rates of recanalization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observational evidence suggests that acute ischemic stroke patients with fCIS may have higher rates of good neurological outcomes compared with patients with pCIS, independent of baseline NIHSS. CIS may be used as another tool to select patients for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":88555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","volume":"9 3","pages":"7-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5317285/pdf/jvin-9-3-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The capillary index score (CIS) has been recently introduced as a metric for rating the collateral circulation of ischemic stroke patients. Multiple studies in the last five years have evaluated the correlation of good CIS with clinical outcomes and suggested the use of CIS in selecting patients for endovascular treatment. We performed a meta-analysis of these studies comparing CIS with clinical outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a computerized search of three databases from January 2011 to November 2015 for studies related to CIS and outcomes. A CIS = 0 or 1 is considered poor (pCIS) and a CIS = 2 or 3 is considered favorable (fCIS). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we evaluated the relationship of CIS to neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 2), recanalization, and post-treatment hemorrhage. Meta-regression analysis of good neurological outcome was performed for adjusting baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) between groups.

Results: Six studies totaling 338 patients (212 with fCISs and 126 with pCISs) were included in the analysis. Patients with fCIS had higher likelihood of good neurological outcome [relative risk (RR) = 3.03; confidence interval (CI) = 95%, 2.05-4.47; p < 0.001] and lower risk of post-treatment hemorrhage (RR = 0.38; CI = 95%, 0.19-0.93; p = 0.04) as compared with patients in the pCIS group. When adjusting for baseline NIHSS, patients with fCIS had higher RR of good neurological outcome when compared with those with pCIS (RR = 2.94; CI = 95%, 1.23-7, p < 0.0001). Favorable CIS was not associated with higher rates of recanalization.

Conclusions: Observational evidence suggests that acute ischemic stroke patients with fCIS may have higher rates of good neurological outcomes compared with patients with pCIS, independent of baseline NIHSS. CIS may be used as another tool to select patients for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

急性缺血性脑卒中的毛细血管指数评分及其与预后的相关性:一项荟萃分析。
背景和目的:毛细管指数评分(CIS)最近被引入作为评价缺血性脑卒中患者侧支循环的指标。在过去的五年中,多项研究评估了良好的CIS与临床结果的相关性,并建议在选择血管内治疗患者时使用CIS。我们对这些研究进行了荟萃分析,比较CIS与临床结果。方法:我们对2011年1月至2015年11月的三个数据库进行了计算机检索,以获取与CIS和结局相关的研究。CIS = 0或1被认为是差的(pCIS), CIS = 2或3被认为是好的(fCIS)。采用随机效应荟萃分析,我们评估了CIS与神经预后(改良Rankin量表评分≤2)、再通和治疗后出血的关系。采用meta回归分析对两组间基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)进行调整。结果:6项研究共纳入338例患者(其中fCISs 212例,pCISs 126例)。fCIS患者神经系统预后良好的可能性更高[相对危险度(RR) = 3.03;置信区间(CI) = 95%, 2.05-4.47;p < 0.001]且治疗后出血风险较低(RR = 0.38;Ci = 95%, 0.19-0.93;p = 0.04)。当调整基线NIHSS时,与pCIS患者相比,fCIS患者有更高的神经系统预后良好的RR (RR = 2.94;CI = 95%, 1.23-7, p < 0.0001)。良好的CIS与较高的再通率无关。结论:观察性证据表明,与基线NIHSS无关,与pCIS患者相比,急性缺血性卒中伴fCIS患者可能具有更高的神经系统预后良好率。CIS可作为选择急性缺血性脑卒中患者进行血管内治疗的另一种工具。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信