INTRACRANIAL MICROEMBOLIC SIGNALS IN 500 PATIENTS WITH POTENTIAL CARDIAC OR CAROTID EMBOLIC SOURCE AND IN NORMAL CONTROLS

Citation
D. Georgiadis et al., INTRACRANIAL MICROEMBOLIC SIGNALS IN 500 PATIENTS WITH POTENTIAL CARDIAC OR CAROTID EMBOLIC SOURCE AND IN NORMAL CONTROLS, Stroke, 28(6), 1997, pp. 1203-1207
Citations number
20
Categorie Soggetti
Peripheal Vascular Diseas","Clinical Neurology
Journal title
StrokeACNP
ISSN journal
00392499
Volume
28
Issue
6
Year of publication
1997
Pages
1203 - 1207
Database
ISI
SICI code
0039-2499(1997)28:6<1203:IMSI5P>2.0.ZU;2-L
Abstract
Background and Purpose We undertook this study to evaluate the prevale nce and clinical correlations of Doppler microembolic signals (MES) in stroke-prone patients. Methods Patients with potential cardiac (n=300 ) or carotid (n=100) embolic source and control subjects (n=100) were monitored with transcranial Doppler sonography for MES. Transthoracic (n=192) and/or transesophageal (n=134) echocardiography and carotid st udies (continuous-wave Doppler, n=181; color-coded duplex, n=47) were performed in all patients with potential native cardioembolic source. Carotid disease was evaluated by means of continuous-wave Doppler (n=8 7), color-coded duplex (n=70), or intra-arterial angiography (n=24) in patients with potential carotid embolic source. Results Overall MES p revalence was 23% in patients with potential native cardioembolic sour ce (infective endocarditis [n=7] 43%, left ventricular aneurysm [n=38] 34%, intracardiac thrombus [n=23] 26%, dilative cardiomyopathy [n=39] 26%, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation [n=24] 21%, valvular disease [n= 80] 15%), 55% in patients with prosthetic cardiac valves (mechanical [ n=77] 58%, porcine [n=7] 43%, homografts [n=5] 20%), 28% in patients w ith carotid disease (symptomatic [n=46] 52%, asymptomatic [n=54] 7%; P <.01), and 5% in control subjects. No relationship between MES counts and patients' age, sex, or actual medication was noted. The sensitivit y and specificity of MES detection in identifying patients with potent ial embolic sources were 31% and 95%, respectively. Conclusions Our st udy confirmed the reported clinical significance of MES in patients wi th carotid disease and the high specificity of this technique. The dem onstrated low sensitivity of MES detection could be due to short monit oring duration or application of antihemostatic treatment. Prospective large-scale studies are needed to determine the definitive value of M ES detection as a diagnostic method in patients with potential cardioe mbolic source.