Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Oxygen Extraction Fraction (OEF) in Acute Stroke Patients with Large...

The superficial temporal artery-middle cerebral artery bypass (STA-MCA) bypass surgery developed by Donaghy and Yarsagil in 1967 provided relief for patients with acute stroke and large vessel occlusive vascular disease. Early reports showed low morbidity and good outcomes. However, a large clinical trial in 1985 reported a failure of extracranial-intracranial (EC/IC) bypass to show benefit in reducing the risk of stroke compared to best medical treatment. Problems with the study included cross overs to surgery from best medical treatment, patients unwilling to be randomized and chose EC/IC surgery, and loss of patients to follow-up. Most egregious is the fact that the study did not attempt to identify and select the patients at high risk for a second stroke. Based on these shortcomings of the EC/IC bypass study, a carotid occlusion surgery study (COSS) was proposed by Dr. William Powers and colleagues using qualitative hemispheric oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) by positron emission tomography (PET) between the contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres with a ratio of 1.16 indicative of hemodynamic compromise. To increase patient enrollment, several compromises were made mid study. First. The ratio threshold was lowered to 1.12 and the level of occlusion in the carotid reduced from 70% to 60%. Despite these compromises the study was closed for futility, apparently because the stroke rate in the medically treated group was too low. Thus, the question as to the benefit of EC/IC bypass surgery remains unresolved. In our NIH funded study Quantitative Occlusive Vascular Disease Study (QUOVADIS), we used quantitative OEF to evaluate stroke risk and compared it to the qualitative count-rate ratio method used in the COSS study and found that these two methods did not identify the same patients at increased risk for stroke, which may explain the reason for the failure of the COSS study as our results show that qualitative OEF ratios do not identify the same patients as quantitative OEF.