AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, L. B.
Right arrow Articles by Kanner, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, L. B.
Right arrow Articles by Kanner, R.

American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol 17, Issue 7 1259-1263, Copyright © 1996 by American Society of Neuroradiology


ARTICLES

Utility of repeat brain imaging in stroke

LB Schneider, RB Libman and R Kanner
Department of Neurology, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY 11042, USA.

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of repeat brain imaging in patients with stroke. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 98 consecutive patients in whom stroke was diagnosed between January 1 and December 31, 1991. We noted the number of brain scans performed, the indications cited, and whether repeat imaging changed the therapeutic decisions or final diagnosis. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent 221 procedures, with 123 repeat imaging studies (98 CT scans and 25 MR images). Sixteen patients had only one scan; 51 had two, and 31 had three or more. Indications for repeat imaging were explicitly documented in 62 (50%) of 123 repeated scans and inferred in another 41 (33%). In 20 (16%), no definite indication could be determined. Indications included lack of acute abnormal imaging findings on the initial scan (n = 48, 39%); compliance with stroke research protocol (n = 11, 9%). In none of the 82 patients did the repeated scan change the diagnosis; therapy was changed in only two (2%) of 82 patients (aspirin was discontinued). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat imaging in patients rarely results in changes in the initial diagnosis or the therapeutic plan; indications for repeat imaging are frequently not clearly stated; in certain groups of patients with stroke, repeat imaging may not be useful.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
A. G. Sorensen
The Link between Diagnosis and Therapy
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 1999; 20(1): 3 - 4.
[Full Text]


Home page
Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
B. Ertl-Wagner, T. Brandt, C. Seifart, and M. Forsting
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Consequences of Repeat Brain Imaging and Follow-up Vascular Imaging in Stroke Patients
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 1999; 20(1): 37 - 42.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
NEJMHome page
S. Gilman
Imaging the Brain- First of Two Parts
N. Engl. J. Med., March 19, 1998; 338(12): 812 - 820.
[Full Text] [PDF]