Person:

Hirsch, Joshua

Background: Conflicting data exists regarding the effect of hemispheric lateralization on acute ischemic stroke outcome. Some of this variability may be related to heterogeneous study populations, particularly with respect to the level of arterial occlusion. Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between stroke lateralization and predictors of outcome. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of stroke lateralization on both functional outcome and its predictors in a well-defined population of anterior circulation proximal artery occlusions treated with IAT. Methods: Thirty-five consecutive left- and 35 consecutive right-sided stroke patients with intracranial ICA and/or MCA occlusions who underwent IAT were retrospectively analyzed. Ischemic change on pre-treatment imaging was quantified. Reperfusion success was graded using the Mori scale. Good outcome at three months was defined as an mRS ≤ 2. Left- and right-sided strokes were compared for outcome and its predictors. Result: Of 70 patients with median NIHSS score of 18 (IQR, 14-21), 19 (27.1%) had a good outcome. There were 21 terminal ICA and 49 MCA occlusions. There was no difference in the rate of good outcomes between left- (n = 9) and right-sided (n = 10) strokes (p = 0.99). There were no significant differences in occlusion level, age, ischemic change on initial imaging and degree of reperfusion between left- and right-sided strokes. Left-sided strokes had higher baseline NIHSS scores (p = 0.02) and lower admission SBP (p = 0.009). Independent predictors of outcome for left-sided strokes were NIHSS (p = 0.0002) and reperfusion (p = 0.006), and for right-sided strokes were age (p = 0.002) and reperfusion (p = 0.003). In univariate analysis, pre-treatment ischemic change on NCCT was associated with outcome only for left-sided strokes (p = 0.05). Conclusions: In anterior circulation proximal artery occlusions treated with IAT, hemispheric lateralization influences the clinical and imaging predictors of outcome. Most notably, NIHSS predicts outcome only for the left-sided strokes in this population. This finding has important implications for outcome prediction in the acute setting and indicates a need for stroke severity scales more sensitive to right hemispheric deficits.

The Massachusetts General Hospital Neuroradiology Division employed an experience and evidence based approach to develop a neuroimaging algorithm to best select patients with severe ischemic strokes caused by anterior circulation occlusions (ACOs) for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and endovascular treatment. Methods found to be of value included the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), non-contrast CT, CT angiography (CTA) and diffusion MRI. Perfusion imaging by CT and MRI were found to be unnecessary for safe and effective triage of patients with severe ACOs. An algorithm was adopted that includes: non-contrast CT to identify hemorrhage and large hypodensity followed by CTA to identify the ACO; diffusion MRI to estimate the core infarct; and NIHSS in conjunction with diffusion data to estimate the clinical penumbra.

Background/Purpose Patients with neurologic complaints are imaged with MRI protocols that may include many pulse sequences. It has not been documented which sequences are essential. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a limited number of sequences in patients with new neurologic complaints. Methods: 996 consecutive brain MRI studies from patients with new neurological complaints were divided into 2 groups. In group 1, reviewers used a 3-sequence set that included sagittal T1-weighted, axial T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and axial diffusion-weighted images. Subsequently, another group of studies were reviewed using axial susceptibility-weighted images in addition to the 3 sequences. The reference standard was the study's official report. Discrepancies between the limited sequence review and the reference standard including Level I findings (that may require immediate change in patient management) were identified. Results: There were 84 major findings in 497 studies in group 1 with 21 not identified in the limited sequence evaluations: 12 enhancing lesions and 3 vascular abnormalities identified on MR angiography. The 3-sequence set did not reveal microhemorrhagic foci in 15 of 19 studies. There were 117 major findings in 499 studies in group 2 with 19 not identified on the 4-sequence set: 17 enhancing lesions and 2 vascular lesions identified on angiography. All 87 Level I findings were identified using limited sequence (56 acute infarcts, 16 hemorrhages, and 15 mass lesions). Conclusion: A 4-pulse sequence brain MRI study is sufficient to evaluate patients with a new neurological complaint except when contrast or angiography is indicated.

Intra-arterial (IA) vasodilator therapy is one of the recommended treatments to minimize the impact of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage-induced cerebral vasospasm refractory to standard management. However, its usefulness and efficacy is not well established. We evaluated the effect IA vasodilator therapy on middle cerebral artery blood flow and on discharge outcome. We reviewed records for 115 adults admitted to Neurointensive Care Unit to test whether there was a difference in clinical outcome (discharge mRS) in those who received IA infusions. In a subset of 19 patients (33 vessels) treated using IA therapy, we tested whether therapy was effective in reversing the trends in blood flow. All measures of MCA blood flow increased from day -2 to -1 before infusion (maximum Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV) 232.2±9.4 to 262.4±12.5 cm/s [p = 0.02]; average PSV 202.1±8.5 to 229.9±10.9 [p = 0.02]; highest Mean Flow Velocity (MFV) 154.3±8.3 to 172.9±10.5 [p = 0.10]; average MFV 125.5±6.3 to 147.8±9.5 cm/s, [p = 0.02]) but not post-infusion (maximum PSV 261.2±14.6 cm/s [p = .89]; average PSV 223.4±11.4 [p = 0.56]; highest MFV 182.9±12.4 cm/s [p = 0.38]; average MFV 153.0±10.2 cm/s [p = 0.54]). After IA therapy, flow velocities were consistently reduced (day X infusion interaction p<0.01 for all measures). However, discharge mRS was higher in IA infusion group, even after adjusting for sex, age, and admission grades. Thus, while IA vasodilator therapy was effective in reversing the vasospasm-mediated deterioration in blood flow, clinical outcomes in the treated group were worse than the untreated group. There is need for a prospective randomized controlled trial to avoid potential confounding effect of selection bias.

Background: Epidural injections are performed utilizing 3 approaches in the lumbar spine: caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections has been sporadic. There are few high-quality randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy in managing disc herniation that have a long-term follow-up and appropriate outcome parameters. There is also a lack of literature comparing the efficacy of these 3 approaches. Methods: This manuscript analyzes data from 3 randomized controlled trials that assessed a total of 360 patients with lumbar disc herniation. There were 120 patients per trial either receiving local anesthetic alone (60 patients) or local anesthetic with steroids (60 patients). Results: Analysis showed similar efficacy for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from disc herniation. The analysis of caudal epidural injections showed the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic alone a 2-year follow-up, based on the average relief per procedure. In the interlaminar group, results were somewhat superior for pain relief in the steroid group at 6 months and functional status at 12 months. Interlaminar epidurals provided improvement in a significantly higher proportion of patients. The proportion of patients nonresponsive to initial injections was also lower in the group for local anesthetic with steroid in the interlaminar trial. Conclusions: The results of this assessment show significant improvement in patients suffering from chronic lumbar disc herniation with 3 lumbar epidural approaches with local anesthetic alone, or using steroids with long-term follow-up of up to 2 years, in a contemporary interventional pain management setting.

Background: Lumbar discogenic pain without pain mediated by a disc herniation, facet joints, or the sacroiliac joints, is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability. After conservative treatment failure, injection therapy, such as an epidural injection, is frequently the next step considered in managing discogenic pain. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy of lumbar epidural injections in managing discogenic pain without radiculopathy, and compare this approach to lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty surgery. Methods: A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty in managing lumbar discogenic pain was performed with methodological quality assessment and grading of evidence. The level of evidence was based on the grading of evidence criteria which, was conducted using 5 levels of evidence ranging from levels I to V. Results: Based on a qualitative assessment of the evidence for both approaches, there is Level II evidence for epidural injections, either caudal or lumbar interlaminar. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests fluoroscopically directed epidural injections provide long-term improvement in back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar discogenic pain. There is also limited evidence showing the potential effectiveness of surgical interventions compared to nonsurgical treatments.

Context: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Evidence Acquisition: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed. Results: The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.