AJR January 2017
William T.C. Yuh
Department of Radiology
University of Washington
Revisit the Current Golden Rules in Managing Acute Ischemic Stroke and
Explore a New Strategy to Further Improve Treatment Selection and Outcome
The authors reexamine the fundamental hypotheses from the imaging research on which clinical practices are based and reassess the current standard clinical and imaging strategies, or golden rules, established over decades for acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
1. Why is “penumbral imaging” for AIS inconsistent and controversial among institutions and imaging experts?
As stated in the study, it is almost impossible to comprehensively address the complex and dynamic pathophysiology during an AIS particularly when “time is brain” remains the key strategy for the management of AIS. Different institutions and experts may have focused upon various aspects of the underlying pathophysiology designed for research and clinical translations. There have been more than 16,000 new imaging related studies published since 2011, thus AIS imaging protocols remain inconsistent and controversial among institutions and imaging experts. Such confusion can be readily appreciated by the quote of “Diffusion + Perfusion = Confusion” from residents and fellows. However, there are some fundamental principles and concepts that may demonstrate the potential limitations of the current imaging- and clinical-based golden rules. Therefore, this article is intended to cover only the potential limitations of established golden rules and to consider the potential for a “newer window of opportunity” to further improve the treatment selection and outcome.
2. What prompted you to do this study?
For decades, penumbral imaging has not reflected its diagnostic efficacy in AIS to have a substantial impact on the treatment outcome. It has not been consistently included in the major clinical trials to guide treatment selection and demonstrate further improved outcome. The current imaging and clinical protocols (golden rules) have been the standard practice for decades, and the potential limits of the golden rules have not been “revisited’. Therefore, penumbra imaging, including DWI and perfusion-weighted imaging, may not have reached its potential, which motivated us to reevaluate the current standard clinical and imaging strategies established over recent decades in the pursuit of more impactful imaging and clinical paradigms to further improve outcome.
3. What is the potential limitation of the therapeutic window in applying one-size-fits-all approaches to AIS patients?
The therapeutic window varies among individuals depending on the severity of ischemic injury, which is quantitatively defined by residual cerebral blood flow (CBF) to determine oligemia, penumbra (reversible ischemia), and infarction core (irreversible ischemia). The use of a fixed 6-hour window may exclude patients with reversible ischemia beyond 6 hours. This one-size-fits-all approach may also include patients with irreversible ischemic core within 6 hours, when revascularization provides no benefit but increases the risk of hemorrhage. As such, therapeutic efficacy and outcomes may have been substantially underestimated by the one-size-fits-all approach. A more personalized therapeutic window that is not determined only by the time after onset may provide a new widow of opportunity for precision management of AIS, including no treatment (do no harm!).
4. Does the study have limitations that should be considered when reviewing the conclusion?
As stated in question 1 above, the complex and dynamic nature of AIS makes it impossible to comprehensively address all the pathophysiological aspects in AIS, and therefore the article is focusing in identifying potential limitations of the golden rules. We do not have all the published results to support the clinical examples or scenarios, approaches, hypotheses, and conclusions discussed in the article. It is our hope that the potential limitations of these golden rules may enhance the awareness and potential opportunity to further improve the management of AIS. (“A swallow does not mean spring, but a laughing horse is a laughing horse!”)
5. What is the most important point information you learned in the study?
- The severity of ischemic injury differentiates among oligemia (no), ischemia (various degree), penumbra (lesser), and infarction core (severe) and therefore critically influences each individual’s therapeutic window and selection of treatment options. Prompt reperfusion intervention is only for penumbra but not for infarction core (contraindication) and oligemia (no indication).
- Ischemia may include both penumbra and core and therefore is not always indicative for prompt perfusion intervention.
- Oligemia, ischemia, penumbra, and infarction core are quantitatively defined by residual CBF, not by imaging. Imaging based hypoperfusion abnormality has not quantitatively correlated and consistently validated with CBF and may become positive during oligemia. Therefore, penumbra imaging may not be able to consistently differentiate among oligemia, penumbra, and infarction core to improve treatment selection and outcome.
Do you have a story idea for InPractice?
Contact Cheryl S. Merrill, Director of Publications, at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.