The Revascularization Scales Dilemma: Is It Right to Apply the Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia Scale in Posterior Circulation Stroke?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Although various revascularization scales are used in the angiographic evaluation of acute ischemic stroke, observer reliability tests of these scales have been rarely performed for posterior circulation stroke. We aimed to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability of 2 scales, the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and the Arterial Occlusive Lesion, in posterior circulation stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three independent readers interpreted pre- and postthrombolytic angiographies of 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke by using the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia and Arterial Occlusive Lesion scales. The κ statistic was used to measure observer agreement for both scales, and κ > 0.6 was considered substantial agreement. RESULTS For the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale, inter- and intraobserver agreement was >0.6. While intraobserver agreement of the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia scale was >0.6 except for 1 reader, interobserver agreement was lower in dichotomized and original scales. In 49 cases with solely basilar artery occlusion, inter- and intraobserver agreement of both scales was similar to that in all 62 patients with posterior circulation stroke. In 2 consecutive readings, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of mTICI 2a reads (22.58% in the first versus 13.44% in the second session, P < .03) and a reciprocal increase in the sum of proportions for modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b and modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 3 reads (62.37% in the first versus 72.58% in the second session, P < .046). CONCLUSIONS In angiographic assessment of posterior circulation stroke, inter- and intraobserver agreement for the Arterial Occlusive Lesion scale was reliable, while the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia failed to achieve substantial interobserver agreement. The clinical impact of this result needs to be validated in future studies.