Assessment of brain tissue viability under clinical circumstances

The growing body of clinical and instrumental information that can be gathered from the earliest phases of stroke has radically modified the way in which neurologists tackle the treatment of stroke patients. It is now theoretically possible to tailor therapeutic choices on the basis of prognostic estimates made within a few hours of stroke onset, that is at a time when numerous options to limit the ischemic insult are still open. However, once many hours or even days have passed, all one can do is witness the effects of a natural course which by then is virtually unmodifiable. This applies not only to stroke patients being treated within the context of pharmacological trials, but also to those in daily clinical management, since some choices, such as when and how to treat brain oedema and give thrombolytics, may now be made earlier and more accurately than in the past. Emergency CT in particular discloses important indices of subsequent clinical evolution and outcome, thus adding to already well-known predictors such as age and severity of neurological status at hospital admission [20]. CT does have the aforementioned limitations regarding inter-observer agreement, which may, however, be minimised by an appropriate training of observers. Moreover it has intrinsic limitations regarding the visualisation of the actual brain tissue damage, since up to one fifth of patients with no or very limited early CT signs may present symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation after thrombolysis [23] and approximately one sixth of early deteriorating patients do not show early CT signs [52]. Other techniques, such as positron and single photon emission tomography and in particular MR imaging, which may shed light on tissue viability and perfusion as well as arterial patency simultaneously, might be able to provide more accurate information [19] Nevertheless, CT is still the most widely used tool in clinical centres which hospitalise stroke patients, and is unlikely to be routinely replaced by the other imaging devices in the foreseeable future. Consequently, there is an urgent need both for a general consensus on the identification criteria of early CT signs and for the widest possible awareness of knowledge regarding CT capabilities among neurologists [47], waiting for the wide applicability of newer technologies.