We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 6, 2024. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed during this period. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.
To be or not 2b? To see or not 2c? Alas, the clock is ticking on TICI
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of RadiologyDocument Type
Response or CommentPublication Date
2018-04-01
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The time has come to throw the flag on the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale. Conceived in surrogacy from our cardiology brethren and sistren’s Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score,1 TICI’s birth was anything but smooth. However, even though plagued by internal inconsistencies,2 confusing nomenclature,3 unclear pronunciation (are you a ‘tissy’ or ‘tiki’ person?), and modifications and more modifications, TICI emerged from a small cohort of recanalization scales (does anyone remember AOL?4) to become the coin of the realm in research and clinical practice. But, heck, we don’t even use thrombolysis anymore, having entered the era of embolectomy years ago. Before turning to how we might fix this situation, we must acknowledge that TICI—and mTICI and oTICI—have served their purpose. TICI started out as a six-point scale that gradually collapsed to a dichotomous scale (2b or better) that was a simple and useful, yet surrogate, outcome for clinical and device-related trials. But our community can—and must—do better. The three of us are not the first to lament the limitations of TICI. In 2012, a working group led by Dr Zaidat concluded, ‘Until further technical and imaging advances can incorporate real-time reliable perfusion studies in the angio-suite to delineate regional perfusion more accurately, the TICI grading system is the best defined and most widely used scheme … A new scale that combines primary site occlusion, lesion location, and perfusion should be explored in the future.’5 That future is now.6Source
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Apr;10(4):323-324. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013521. Epub 2018 Jan 19. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013521Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/48272PubMed ID
29352058Related Resources
ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013521