Artigo Acesso aberto Revisado por pares

Clarifying Differences Among Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Scale Variants

2013; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 44; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/strokeaha.111.000399

ISSN

1524-4628

Autores

Sang Hyun Suh, Harry J. Cloft, Jennifer E. Fugate, Alejandro A. Rabinstein, David S. Liebeskind, David F. Kallmes,

Tópico(s)

Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Resumo

Although thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 has been regarded as a successful angiographic outcome, the definition or subclassification of TICI 2 has differed between the original (o-TICI) and modified TICI (m-TICI). We sought to compare interobserver variability for both scores and analyze the subgroups of the TICI 2.Five readers interpreted angiographies independently using a 6-point scale as follows: grade 0, no antegrade flow; grade 1, flow past the initial occlusion without tissue reperfusion; grade 2, partial reperfusion in <50% of the affected territory; grade 3, partial reperfusion in 50% to 66%; grade 4, partial reperfusion in ≥ 67%; grade 5, complete perfusion. Readings using this scale were then converted into o-TICI and m-TICI score. Statistical analysis was performed according to TICI 2 subgroups.Interobserver agreement was good for the o-TICI and m-TICI scores (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73 and 0.67, respectively). Our grade 3 (partial perfusion with 50% to 66%) occupied 19% of total readings, which would have been classified as grade 2a in o-TICI, but as 2b in m-TICI. The m-TICI was more likely to predict good clinical outcome than o-TICI (odds ratio, 2.01 versus 1.63, in reads with TICI 2b/3 versus 0/2a).Both TICI scales showed good agreement among readers. However, the variability in partial perfusion thresholds leads to different grading in ≈ 20% of cases and may result in significantly different rates of accurate outcome prediction.

Referência(s)