Analysis of clinical and imaging features in patients with recent small subcortical infarcts of different etiologies
10.3760/cma.j.cn113694-20250815-00479
- VernacularTitle:不同病因新发皮质下小梗死患者的临床和影像学特征分析
- Author:
Rumei LEI
1
;
Jing ZHONG
;
Yajun CHENG
;
Yuying YAN
;
Simiao WU
;
Bo WU
;
Shuai JIANG
Author Information
1. 四川大学华西医院神经内科，成都 610041
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Brain infarction;
Atherosclerosis;
Carotid stenosis;
Cerebral small vessel disease
- From:
Chinese Journal of Neurology
2025;58(11):1169-1178
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the differences in clinical and imaging characteristics of patients with recent small subcortical infarct (RSSI) stratified by different etiological subtypes.Methods:A retrospective, consecutive analysis was conducted on 696 RSSI patients admitted to the West China Hospital, Sichuan University, from January 2019 to May 2024. Based on clinical and imaging data, patients were stratified into 3 etiological subgroups: presumed cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD)-related RSSI, coexisting carrier large artery stenosis, and coexisting proximal extracranial/intracranial large artery stenosis. The clinical characteristics, vascular risk factors, infarct imaging features, and CSVD markers were compared across the 3 groups. Additionally, the differences in clinical and imaging features based on the location of infarcts (anterior vs posterior circulation) and infarct size (<15 mm vs ≥15 mm) were examined. Results:Among the 696 patients, 557 (80.0%) had presumed CSVD-related RSSI, 68 (9.8%) had coexisting carrier large artery stenosis, and 71 (10.2%) had coexisting proximal extracranial/intracranial large artery stenosis. The patients with presumed CSVD-related RSSI were the youngest [60 (53, 69) years], followed by those with coexisting carrier large artery stenosis [64 (55, 69) years] and those with coexisting proximal extracranial/intracranial large artery stenosis [69 (55, 75) years; H=9.523, P=0.013]. Among RSSI patients with coexisting proximal extracranial/intracranial large artery stenosis, the proportion of those with diabetes (38/71, 53.5%) was the highest, whereas the proportion was 210/557 (37.7%) in the presumed CSVD-related group and 31/68 (45.6%) in the group with coexisting carrier large artery stenosis (χ 2=8.027, P=0.023). Patients with RSSI combined with proximal extracranial/intracranial large artery stenosis had more infarction sites in the pons and a higher proportion of proximal infarction. However, there were no significant differences among the 3 groups in terms of infarct size, or CSVD imaging markers. In the anterior versus posterior circulation comparison, patients with posterior circulation RSSI ( n=360) had a significantly higher age of onset [63(55, 72) years vs 60(52, 59) years, U=51 335.500, P<0.001], had higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes, and showed higher NIHSS scores [3(2, 6) vs 3(1, 5), U=57 840.500, P=0.028]. The anterior circulation group ( n=366) showed a higher proportion of lacunas [152/336 (45.2%) vs 118/360 (32.8%), χ2=11.364, P<0.001], while the posterior circulation group had a greater prevalence of severe perivascular spaces in the basal ganglia [254/360 (70.6%) vs 203/336 (60.4%), χ2=7.879, P=0.005] and deep white matter hyperintensities grading≥2 [124/360 (34.4%) vs 90/336 (26.8%), χ2=4.787, P=0.029]. There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of infarcts between anterior and posterior circulations or in CSVD imaging markers between RSSI patients with infarction lesions ≥15 mm ( n=290) and <15 mm ( n=406). Conclusions:Approximately 20% of RSSI cases are related to large artery stenosis. These patients tend to be older at onset and have a higher prevalence of diabetes. Compared to presumed CSVD-related RSSI cases, RSSI cases related to large artery stenosis show no significant differences in infarct imaging features and CSVD imaging markers, suggesting that large artery stenosis in RSSI may be an epiphenomenon rather than a direct causative factor.
