A Comparison of Infarct Size and Prognosis between Cardiogenic Embolic Infarction and Large Artery Atherosclerotic Infarction.
- Author:
Ji Hoon JANG
1
;
Byung Woo YOON
;
Jae Kyu ROH
Author Information
1. Department of Neurology, Cheju Hanmaeum Hospital.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cardiogenic embolic infarction;
Large artery atherosclerotic infarction;
Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation;
Valvular heart disease;
Infarct size;
Prognosis
- MeSH:
Arteries*;
Brain;
Embolism;
Heart Valve Diseases;
Humans;
Infarction*;
Medical Records;
Prognosis*;
Risk Factors;
Secondary Prevention;
Stroke;
Thrombosis
- From:Journal of the Korean Neurological Association
2000;18(4):381-385
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic embolic infarction is the most preventable type of ischemic stroke. This study was under-taken to compare the infarct size, prognosis, and risk factors between cardiogenic embolic infarction (CE) and large artery atherosclerotic infarction (LAA). METHODS:We reviewed the medical records and brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance image (CT/MRI) scans of patients with CE or LAA during the period between January 1996 and May 1998. Patients with lacunar and posterior circulation infarctions were excluded. A slice of brain CT/MRI scan showing the largest lesion was selected in each patient and the area of infarction was then measured. Prognosis was determined by the Modified Rankin Disability Scale (MRDS) and was grouped as either good (MDRS 0, 1, 2) or poor (MDRS 3, 4, 5). RESULTS: The study included 103 patients : 50 with CE (NVAF in 23, VHD with or without AF in 13, prosthetic valve in 6, and others in 8) and 53 with LAA (large artery thrombosis in 29, and artery to artery embolism in 24). The infarct size of CE (23.2+/-14.7 cm2) was significantly larger than that of LAA (11.4+/-10.5 cm2) (p<0.001). The infarct size of NVAF (29.0+/-19.1 cm2) was significantly larger than that of VHD with or without AF (19.2+/-11.5 cm2) (p<0.05). Patients with CE had a worse prognosis (poor in 46%) than those with LAA (poor in 23%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Our results showed that CE led to larger lesions and worse outcomes. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of primary and secondary preventions of stroke in patients with cardiogenic embolic sources.
