Mri Mystery: Stroke Symptoms, But Negative Results?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for diagnosing acute ischemic strokes, but it is not foolproof. While MRI is more sensitive than CT scanning for detecting cerebral ischemia, it is not 100% accurate. Several studies have found that a significant proportion of patients with clinically diagnosed strokes had negative MRI results, with rates of false negatives ranging from 2% to 29%. This phenomenon is more common in posterior circulation and lacunar strokes, and in cases where scanning is delayed. As such, clinical assessment remains essential, and repeat MRI scans may be necessary to detect infarcts that were missed initially.

False-negative MRI in acute posterior circulation strokes

False-negative MRI scans in acute posterior circulation strokes are not uncommon, with a rate of occurrence that ranges from 5.8% to 29% according to different studies. The rate of false-negative MRI is higher in the first 24 hours of ischemic stroke, and in the case of vertebrobasilar stroke, it can be as high as 31%.

Causes of False-negative MRI

The false-negative rate is influenced by several factors, including:

• Time from symptom onset to scanning: The chance of detecting an acute ischemic lesion increases with the duration of ischemia.
• Location of the stroke: Posterior circulation infarcts are more likely to result in false-negative MRI scans than anterior circulation infarcts.
• Size of the lesion: Smaller lesions, especially those in the posterior circulation or lacunar strokes, may be too small to produce an adequate signal change on MRI.

Implications for Clinical Practice

The high rate of false-negative MRI scans in acute posterior circulation strokes has important implications for clinical practice. Firstly, it highlights the need for heightened awareness of technology limitations and the importance of follow-up imaging. Structured clinical examinations, such as the HINTS test, may be more sensitive and specific than early MRI in acute posterior circulation ischemic stroke. Additionally, the diagnosis of stroke should not be ruled out based on early negative MRI scans, especially if symptoms persist and are suggestive of posterior circulation stroke. Patients with negative MRI scans should still receive secondary stroke prevention until further evidence on their specific management is available.

MRI-negative strokes with a likely clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke

The implications of MRI-negative strokes with a likely clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke are significant. Neurologists should be cautious about ruling out a stroke diagnosis based solely on MRI results beyond the acute stroke stage. Patients with MRI-negative strokes have a similar risk of recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and disability as those with MRI-positive strokes and should receive secondary stroke prevention.

Clinical outcomes of patients with negative DWI-MRI

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is a highly sensitive method for detecting ischemic stroke lesions, but it is not perfect. In some cases, patients may exhibit clinical signs of stroke, yet their DWI-MRI scans appear normal or "negative." This phenomenon has been observed in multiple studies, and it is important to understand the implications for patient care and prognosis.

In a study by Makin et al., they found that nearly one-third (29%) of patients with nondisabling ischemic stroke had no visible acute ischemic lesion on DWI-MRI. Interestingly, these patients with negative DWI-MRI had similar clinical outcomes at one year as those with positive DWI-MRI lesions. At the one-year follow-up, patients with negative DWI-MRI were just as likely to have recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, or stroke-related disability as those with positive DWI-MRI lesions. However, patients with positive DWI-MRI lesions were more likely to have a new lesion on the follow-up MRI, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.

The study by Makin et al. is the largest of its kind and included a one-year follow-up with repeat MRI for those able to attend. Their findings suggest that patients with clinically confirmed stroke but negative DWI-MRI should still receive secondary stroke prevention, as they are at a similar risk of recurrent stroke and disability as those with positive DWI-MRI lesions.

Another study by Xiong and Zhao focused on in-hospital clinical outcomes for ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis (IV tPA). They found that 12.36% of their patients had negative DWI imaging at the first MR scan post-treatment. In this DWI-negative group, 51.9% achieved early neurological improvement (ENI) at 24 hours, and 74.1% achieved a favourable clinical outcome at discharge. However, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that DWI-negative status was not an independent predictor of ENI or favourable clinical outcome.

The presence of negative DWI-MRI in stroke patients has also been observed in other studies. Watts et al. presented a case series of clinically definite acute stroke with negative DWI-MRI, finding that certain stroke syndromes, such as ataxic hemiparesis and isolated internuclear ophthalmoplegia, were more likely to be associated with negative DWI-MRI. Aben et al. also noted that the absence of an infarct on MRI is not uncommon after a clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke, with 24% of patients in their study being MRI-negative 4-6 weeks after stroke.

In summary, while DWI-MRI is a valuable tool for diagnosing ischemic stroke, it is important to recognize that negative findings do not always rule out stroke. Patients with clinically confirmed stroke and negative DWI-MRI can still experience similar clinical outcomes and recurrence rates as those with positive DWI-MRI lesions. Further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms and optimal management strategies for this unique patient population.

MRI limitations in diagnosing stroke

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for diagnosing ischemic stroke and guiding treatment decisions. However, it is important to acknowledge that MRI has certain limitations in diagnosing stroke, and these limitations can impact the accuracy and timing of stroke detection. Here are some key limitations of MRI in diagnosing stroke:

• Time Sensitivity: While MRI is highly sensitive in detecting ischemic lesions shortly after a stroke, this sensitivity declines over time. The ability to identify infarcts decreases significantly after the first 24 hours, and negative MRI results are not uncommon several weeks after a stroke. This time sensitivity can impact the accuracy of stroke diagnosis, especially in cases with delayed presentations.
• False Negatives: MRI can produce false-negative results, particularly in posterior circulation infarcts and lacunar strokes. Technical factors, such as slice thickness and positioning of the patient, can also contribute to false negatives. This limitation underscores the importance of clinical assessment and the need for advanced MRI techniques to reduce false negatives.
• Stroke Mimics: MRI may have difficulty distinguishing stroke from conditions that mimic stroke symptoms, such as migraine or seizures. In these cases, the absence of an infarct on MRI does not necessarily rule out a stroke, and further clinical evaluation may be necessary.
• Lesion Detection: MRI may not always detect small or subtle lesions, especially in the brainstem or posterior circulation. This limitation can lead to missed diagnoses or delayed treatment.
• Inter-rater Reliability: There can be variability in the interpretation of MRI findings, particularly when assessing the age of a stroke or the presence of hemorrhagic transformation. Standardized criteria and quantitative measurements can help improve inter-rater reliability.
• Practical Considerations: MRI availability, cost, and scan time are practical limitations. MRI may not be accessible in all medical facilities, and the longer scan time compared to CT scans can be a concern in the acute setting. However, recent advances, such as faster MRI protocols, aim to address these practical challenges.
• Lack of Standardization: There is a lack of standardized criteria and thresholds for interpreting MRI findings related to stroke. Different studies have proposed varying thresholds for parameters like Tmax to discriminate between penumbra and benign oligemic areas. This lack of standardization can lead to inconsistencies in stroke diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Clinical assessment priority over diagnostic modalities

Clinical assessment is of utmost priority in stroke diagnosis, even more so than diagnostic modalities such as neuroimaging. This is because the latter is used to confirm the diagnosis and rule out other conditions, rather than being the primary means of diagnosis. A detailed history and physical examination are crucial in diagnosing stroke, with the most common historical feature being its acute onset, and the most common physical findings being focal weakness and speech disturbance. The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a validated tool that can aid in the diagnosis of stroke and has both diagnostic and prognostic value. However, it is important to note that the exact time of symptom onset is critical in determining eligibility for thrombolysis, a time-sensitive treatment for stroke.

While neuroimaging is essential in differentiating between ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage, it is not always necessary for diagnosing ischemic stroke, which can often be done based on clinical presentation alone. Computed tomography (CT) scans are typically more available and quicker than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, making them the preferred choice when eligibility for acute thrombolysis is a factor. However, MRI scans have better resolution and are more sensitive for detecting acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs).

It is important to note that a normal CT scan does not rule out ischemic stroke, as it may not detect small, acute, or posterior fossa strokes. On the other hand, MRI scans with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI-MRI) are more sensitive and can detect acute ischemic lesions that may not be visible on CT. However, even with DWI-MRI, a significant proportion of patients with nondisabling stroke may not show relevant lesions, and these patients should still receive secondary stroke prevention.

Frequently asked questions