Editors' Note: Prevalence and Significance of Impaired Microvascular Tissue Reperfusion Despite Macrovascular Angiographic Reperfusion (No-Reflow)
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Pooling data from the EXTEND-IA, EXTEND-IA TNK, and EXTEND IA-TNK part 2 clinical trials, Dr. Ng et al. found that persistent hypoperfusion (“no-reflow”) on follow-up perfusion imaging after successful recanalization was common and associated with poor clinical outcomes. One in 4 patients had perfusion imaging evidence of “no-reflow” at 24 hours, and this radiographic finding accounted for 60% of the final infarct volume and was associated with a 4-fold higher odds of being functionally dependent or dead by day 90. Dr. Schiphorst et al. sought to validate these findings using their data set but found the prevalence of “no-reflow” occurred in half as many patients. They also emphasize that the relationship of no-reflow and clinical outcome is uncertain. Nonetheless, inherent methodologic differences in these studies, specifically selection bias for 24-hour perfusion imaging may account for the variability in findings. The systematic use of perfusion imaging in 99% of included patients from the pooled analysis by Ng et al. and larger sample size make for a convincing argument that postreperfusion hypoperfusion is not only common, but a useful prognostic factor.
Pooling data from the EXTEND-IA, EXTEND-IA TNK, and EXTEND IA-TNK part 2 clinical trials, Dr. Ng et al. found that persistent hypoperfusion (“no-reflow”) on follow-up perfusion imaging after successful recanalization was common and associated with poor clinical outcomes. One in 4 patients had perfusion imaging evidence of “no-reflow” at 24 hours, and this radiographic finding accounted for 60% of the final infarct volume and was associated with a 4-fold higher odds of being functionally dependent or dead by day 90. Dr. Schiphorst et al. sought to validate these findings using their data set but found the prevalence of “no-reflow” occurred in half as many patients. They also emphasize that the relationship of no-reflow and clinical outcome is uncertain. Nonetheless, inherent methodologic differences in these studies, specifically selection bias for 24-hour perfusion imaging may account for the variability in findings. The systematic use of perfusion imaging in 99% of included patients from the pooled analysis by Ng et al. and larger sample size make for a convincing argument that postreperfusion hypoperfusion is not only common, but a useful prognostic factor.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2023 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.