Transcranial Doppler and Cerebral Augmentation in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Collateral flow augmentation using partial aortic occlusion may improve cerebral perfusion in acute stroke. We assessed the effect of partial aortic occlusion on arterial flow velocities of acute stroke patients. METHODS: Patients with neurological deficits following thrombolysis were treated with partial aortic occlusion. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) was used to measure arterial flow velocities at baseline, before and during balloon inflation. The augmented mean flow velocity (MFV), peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end diastolic velocity flow percentages (aMFV%, aPSV%, aEDV%) were calculated and compared based on outcome. RESULTS: Of 11 patients, 3 did not have a temporal window and thus were excluded from our analysis. Six of the remaining 8 patients had middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusions; the final 2 had terminal internal carotid artery (TICA) occlusions. Three of these 8 patients had good outcome at 90 days (mRS < 3). Before intra-aortic balloon inflation (IABI), the mean affected artery MFV was 23 ± 11 cm/s; during the procedure it was 26 ± 12 cm/s (P = .2). Mean affected artery PSV at baseline and during balloon inflation were 37 ± 16 and 46 ± 23, respectively (P = .1). Mean augmented affected artery MFV% in patients with good long-term outcome was 65.4 ± 46, while the result in those with poor outcome was -3.7 ± 21 (P = .03). Three patients developed anterior cross-filling, and of these 2 had good long-term outcome. CONCLUSION: TCD monitoring of patients treated with IABI may help in predicting outcome in this novel device. J Neuroimaging 2012;XX:1-6.
- SourceAvailable from: Stephen Jan[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Positioning a patient lying-flat in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke may improve recovery and reduce disability, but such a possibility has not been formally tested in a randomised trial. We therefore initiated the Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) to determine the effects of lying-flat (0°) compared with sitting-up (≥30°) head positioning in the first 24 hours of hospital admission for patients with acute stroke. We plan to conduct an international, cluster randomised, crossover, open, blinded outcome-assessed clinical trial involving 140 study hospitals (clusters) with established acute stroke care programs. Each hospital will be randomly assigned to sequential policies of lying-flat (0°) or sitting-up (≥30°) head position as a 'business as usual' stroke care policy during the first 24 hours of admittance. Each hospital is required to recruit 60 consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), and all patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (an estimated average of 10), in the first randomised head position policy before crossing over to the second head position policy with a similar recruitment target. After collection of in-hospital clinical and management data and 7-day outcomes, central trained blinded assessors will conduct a telephone disability assessment with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. The primary outcome for analysis is a shift (defined as improvement) in death or disability on this scale. For a cluster size of 60 patients with AIS per intervention and with various assumptions including an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03, a sample size of 16,800 patients at 140 centres will provide 90% power (α 0.05) to detect at least a 16% relative improvement (shift) in an ordinal logistic regression analysis of the primary outcome. The treatment effect will also be assessed in all patients with ICH who are recruited during each treatment study period. HeadPoST is a large international clinical trial in which we will rigorously evaluate the effects of different head positioning in patients with acute stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162017 (date of registration: 27 April 2014); ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12614000483651 (date of registration: 9 May 2014). Protocol version and date: version 2.2, 19 June 2014.Trials 06/2015; 16(1):256. DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0767-1 · 2.12 Impact Factor