English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Visual rating of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)–fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) mismatch can be challenging. We evaluated quantification of DWI and FLAIR to predict DWI-FLAIR mismatch status in ischemic stroke. Methods: In screened patients from the WAKE-UP trial (Efficacy and Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Thrombolysis in Wake-Up Stroke), we retrospectively studied relative DWI (rDWI SI) and FLAIR signal intensity (rFLAIR SI). We defined the optimal mean rFLAIR SI and interquartile range of the rDWI SI in the DWI lesion to predict DWI-FLAIR mismatch status. We investigated agreement between each quantitative parameter and the DWI-FLAIR mismatch and the association between both quantitative parameters. We evaluated the predictive value of the quantitative parameters for excellent functional outcome by logistic regression, adjusted for DWI lesion volume, treatment, age, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score. Results: In the rFLAIR and rDWI SI analysis, 213/369 and 241/421 subjects respectively had a DWI-FLAIR mismatch. A mean rFLAIR SI cutoff of 1.09 and interquartile range rDWI SI cutoff of 0.47 were optimal to predict the DWI-FLAIR mismatch with a sensitivity and specificity of 77% (95% CI, 71%–83%) and 67% (95% CI, 59%–74%), and 76% (95% CI, 70%–81%) and 72% (95% CI, 65%–79%), respectively. For both quantitative parameters, agreement with the DWI-FLAIR mismatch was fair (73%, κ=0.44 [95% CI, 0.35–0.54] for rFLAIR and 74%, κ=0.48 [95% CI, 0.39–0.56] for rDWI). Both quantitative parameters correlated moderately (Pearson R=0.54 [95% CI, 0.46–0.61],P &lt;0.001, n=367). The interquartile range rDWI SI (n=188), but not the mean rFLAIR SI (n=172), was an independent predictor of excellent functional outcome (odds ratio, 0.67 per 0.1 unit increase of interquartile range rDWI SI, 95% CI, 0.51–0.89,P =0.01).Conclusions: Agreement between the quantitative and qualitative approach may be insufficient to advocate DWI or FLAIR quantification as alternative for visual rating.

stroke

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery Quantification to Predict Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery Mismatch Status in Ischemic Stroke With Unknown Onset