context: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomographic (CT) @entity4 ( @entity4 ) areas after endovascular therapy for acute @entity3 are a common finding indicative of blood-brain barrier disruption. @entity7 allows an accurate differentiation between @entity4 areas related to @entity1 ( @entity1 ) or to @entity6 ( @entity6 ). We sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the presence of @entity1 and @entity6 after endovascular therapy. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 132 @entity0 treated with endovascular therapy was analyzed. According to dual-energy CT findings, @entity0 were classified into 3 groups: no @entity4 areas (n=53), @entity1 (n=32), and @entity6 (n=47). The rate of new @entity5 transformations was recorded at follow-up neuroimaging. Clinical outcome was evaluated at 90 days with the modified Rankin Scale (poor outcome, 3-6). RESULTS: Poor outcome was associated with the presence of @entity1 (odds ratio [OR], 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.34-38.95) and @entity6 (OR, 10.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.42-31.68). The rate of poor outcome despite complete recanalization was also significantly higher in @entity1 (OR, 9.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-37.18) and @entity6 (OR, 15.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.85-59.35) groups, compared with the no- @entity4 group. @entity0 with @entity1 disclosed a higher incidence of delayed @entity5 transformation at follow-up (OR, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-16.37) compared with no- @entity4 @entity0 . CONCLUSIONS: Blood-brain barrier disruption, defined as @entity1 and @entity6 on dual-energy CT, was associated with poor clinical outcomes in @entity0 with @entity2 treated with endovascular therapies. Moreover, isolated @entity1 was associated with delayed @entity5 transformation. These results support the clinical relevance of blood-brain barrier disruption in @entity2 .
  