Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome coexisting convexal subarachnoid hemorrhage and watershed infarction

2019 ◽  
Vol 405 ◽  
pp. 366-367
Author(s):  
J.W. Shin ◽  
E. Oh ◽  
D.H. Kim
Author(s):  
Ji Y. Chong ◽  
Michael P. Lerario

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome can cause thunderclap headache, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and stroke. The clinical presentation can be similar to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and therefore requires rapid angiography. Angiographic findings of vasculopathy and resolution of clinical symptoms and imaging abnormalities support this diagnosis. This syndrome is most often incited following pregnancy or the ingestion of a vasoactive medication.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Dong-Young Jeong ◽  
Keon-Woo Kim ◽  
Yun-Jik Park ◽  
Yeon-Jung Kim ◽  
Jun Young Chang

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) has several trigger factors, including physical exertion, pregnancy, and the intake of vasoconstrictive agents. These triggers activate the sympathetic nervous system and induce vasoconstriction, thereby leading to an ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. In this study, we describe case of RCVS in a 73-year-old woman who complained of sudden bilateral leg weakness after taking cyclophosphamide for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis. She was diagnosed with concurrent cerebral hemorrhage and cerebral infarction with multiple intracranial vasoconstrictions on imaging analyses.


2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-137
Author(s):  
Kazuyuki Noda ◽  
Jiro Fukae ◽  
Kenji Fujishima ◽  
Kentaro Mori ◽  
Takao Urabe ◽  
...  

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (7) ◽  
pp. e639-e647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva A. Rocha ◽  
M. Akif Topcuoglu ◽  
Gisele S. Silva ◽  
Aneesh B. Singhal

ObjectiveTo develop a method to distinguish reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) from other large/medium-vessel intracranial arteriopathies.MethodsWe identified consecutive patients from our institutional databases admitted in 2013–2017 with newly diagnosed RCVS (n = 30) or non-RCVS arteriopathy (n = 80). Admission clinical and imaging features were compared. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to develop a discriminatory score. Score validity was tested in a separate cohort of patients with RCVS and its closest mimic, primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS). In addition, key variables were used to develop a bedside approach to distinguish RCVS from non-RCVS arteriopathies.ResultsThe RCVS group had significantly more women, vasoconstrictive triggers, thunderclap headaches, normal brain imaging results, and better outcomes. Beta coefficients from the multivariate regression model yielding the best c-statistic (0.989) were used to develop the RCVS2 score (range −2 to +10; recurrent/single thunderclap headache; carotid artery involvement; vasoconstrictive trigger; sex; subarachnoid hemorrhage). Score ≥5 had 99% specificity and 90% sensitivity for diagnosing RCVS, and score ≤2 had 100% specificity and 85% sensitivity for excluding RCVS. Scores 3–4 had 86% specificity and 10% sensitivity for diagnosing RCVS. The score showed similar performance to distinguish RCVS from PACNS in the validation cohort. A clinical approach based on recurrent thunderclap headaches, trigger and normal brain scans, or convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage correctly diagnosed 25 of 37 patients with RCVS2 scores 3–4 across the derivation and validation cohorts.ConclusionRCVS can be accurately distinguished from other intracranial arteriopathies upon admission, using widely available clinical and imaging features.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that the RCVS2 score accurately distinguishes patients with RCVS from those with other intracranial arteriopathies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document