1
|
Motolese F, Lanzone J, Todisco A, Rossi M, Santoro F, Cruciani A, Capone F, Di Lazzaro V, Pilato F. The role of neurophysiological tools in the evaluation of ischemic stroke evolution: a narrative review. Front Neurol 2023; 14:1178408. [PMID: 37181549 PMCID: PMC10172480 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1178408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Ischemic stroke is characterized by a complex cascade of events starting from vessel occlusion. The term "penumbra" denotes the area of severely hypo-perfused brain tissue surrounding the ischemic core that can be potentially recovered if blood flow is reestablished. From the neurophysiological perspective, there are local alterations-reflecting the loss of function of the core and the penumbra-and widespread changes in neural networks functioning, since structural and functional connectivity is disrupted. These dynamic changes are closely related to blood flow in the affected area. However, the pathological process of stroke does not end after the acute phase, but it determines a long-term cascade of events, including changes of cortical excitability, that are quite precocious and might precede clinical evolution. Neurophysiological tools-such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) or Electroencephalography (EEG)-have enough time resolution to efficiently reflect the pathological changes occurring after stroke. Even if they do not have a role in acute stroke management, EEG and TMS might be helpful for monitoring ischemia evolution-also in the sub-acute and chronic stages. The present review aims to describe the changes occurring in the infarcted area after stroke from the neurophysiological perspective, starting from the acute to the chronic phase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Motolese
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
- *Correspondence: Francesco Motolese,
| | - Jacopo Lanzone
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Neurorehabilitation Unit of Milan Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Todisco
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Mariagrazia Rossi
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesca Santoro
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessandro Cruciani
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Fioravante Capone
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Di Lazzaro
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Pilato
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
The Role of the Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Acute Kidney Injury. Mediators Inflamm 2022; 2022:7911033. [PMID: 36072574 PMCID: PMC9441381 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7911033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2022] [Revised: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The objective of the study was to determine if acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with acute ischemic stroke was associated with the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) assessed upon admission to the neurology intensive care unit (NICU) (AIS). We also looked into the MLR's function in predicting hospital mortality in AIS patients. Methods This retrospective analysis included 595 adult patients with AIS who were hospitalized to the NICU of the First Affiliated Hospital of South China between January 2017 and December 2019. Clinical signs and imaging studies were used to diagnose AIS. KDIGO criteria were used to define AKI. The ratio of monocytes to lymphocytes was used to compute MLR, the ratio of neutrophils to lymphocytes was used to calculate NLR, and the ratio of platelets to lymphocytes was used to calculate PLR. Result 361 males and 234 women between the ages of 66.27 ± 12.05 years took part in the study. The individuals' MLR was 0.4729 ± 0.3461 and their neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was 8.18 ± 5.45. There were notable disparities in MLR and NLR between the AKI and non-AKI groups (p < 0.001). The link between MLR and AKI development risk was enhanced after adjustment, with respective cutoff values of 0.4581 and 9.26. For the MLR-based prediction of AKI incidence, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were 0.711 (95% CI: 0.663-0.758). And NLR-based prediction of AKI incidence the AUCs was (95% CI: 0.742-0826). Additionally, MLR was associated with a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (2.825, 95% confidence interval: 1.058, 7.545), whereas NLR was associated with a risk of in-hospital mortality of 1.085. (95 percent CI: 1.022, 1.151). An AUC of 0.745 (95% CI: 0.601-0.889, p = 0.026) was obtained for in-hospital mortality based on the MLR, whereas an AUC of 0.724 (95% CI: 0.531-0.916, p = 0.042) was obtained for in-hospital mortality based on the NLR. Conclusion MLR and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were associated with a higher risk of AKI and in-hospital death in AIS patients.
Collapse
|